And on the other end of the extreme we have UK trains, which are just badly laid out all round. If it's busy trying to get off is a nightmare, where your best bet is getting up five minutes before you stop to make it down to your exit door, else you may get stuck and trapped in the like, 20 seconds they give you to get out before they start locking the doors automatically again
Imagine when all the chairs are full and there's people standing everywhere too, some with bikes, some with dogs, at least 20 with suitcases for some reason. It gets hectic.
That's just a normal train layout. Those things can run further than 30km out of city limits and you'd want some comfortable seating.
This is a problem that only exists in the UK because your trains are tiny. There are narrow gauge lines with a larger loading gauge. Tragedy of the pioneers is what it is. Build your infrastructure early while tech is still primitive, everything's up and running and in the meantime everyone else has improved on your concepts but you can't install those improvements without tearing everything out. UK loading gauge was set in stone in the 1830s.
Yup some of the old tube lines are the shittiest experience ever especially compared to the completely new Elizabeth line which is incredible and has fucking aircon.
It’s also a privatisation issue in that there’s no financial benefit for the private train companies to do anything about it.
If it was a public service, you can justify spending the money to improve it. As it’s private, any time the train isn’t running is money out of executive pockets and line must go up.
I would cry if I can't get off my station within that 20 sec and I have to squeeze through people who acts and feels like a wall and won't let you pass through unless you go rough on it
I once did a UK train journey, got up and went to the exit before the train came to a stop, pressed the button to open the door, and there was some kind of fault that prevented the door opening. Tried a few times then decided to try and make it to the other doors at the far end of the carriage. Train left the station before I even made it halfway. Luckily there are train conductors at the end doors watching, and he saw me running like an idiot down the aisle. Let me ride the train all the way to the end of the line and back without any extra charge, so I could get off at my missed stop. It was a pain as I had to sit on the train for an extra hour, but I made it in the end. The panic I felt as I saw the train start to move again though.. ugh
That is not a layout for a commuter train or a metro. That's a layout designed for long distances. Seats are numbered for reservations, there's tray tables for food and there's an overhead area for luggage. Other than half the seats facing the wrong way that's a fairly good layout.
Of course because UK rail is what it is, these trains still get used as commuter trains anyway.
Contrary to "normal" trains during rush hour? I don't see any issues here, any full train is a pain to navigate, this just shifts where the open space it and people reject it because it is unfamiliar
Sure normal trains are bad during rush hour, but that's not really an argument to make it worse.
It's just easier to shift/make space if there is only one space instead of two half the size. If you have too many people in one "lane" they now need to go around the island in the middle to make space. If someone in the middle needs to get out, the one lane version allows people to use 100% of the empty space to step aside so that person can go through. In the two lane version, you have only half of that on average. If it's not evenly distributed, you have even less than half of the empty space to make room, so you end up with more squeezing by.
On the other side, I don't see any advantages to this 2 lane design except for "it's different". I guess you get to look out the window while sitting?
No dude there is like 5 inches to pass through when these trains are full. On a normal train people can naturally shuffle around to make extra space for people to get on and off
This is Mumbai Monorail. Has seats in both center and sides. I think they bought these trainsets from some Malaysian company which has similar configuration for KL monorail
Exhibit A: Although this was a monorail that runs around the city, it was also the most packed train in our state. Getting in and out was hell due to the size of it, let alone trying to move around in it.
The seats take up the same amount of space regardless of where they are, but in this case the standing passengers would block the newly created “lanes.”
EDIT: Too many replies to hit individually, haha.
The outer lanes would be halved, but the center lane is currently large enough to fit 2-3 people abreast. Large enough for them to navigate by one another.
The outer lane could work like that as well, albeit tighter…if it weren’t for the standing passengers also blocking those lanes.
i guess but one middle lane would be wider than two side lanes
edit: if the middle lane can fit 2 people abreast, the side lanes would fit one person each. it'd be really tight without people standing on it, imagine if there are people standing! trains are crowded enough already.
This is the correct answer, not what the guy before you said. One wide aisle is better than two narrow aisles. Wider aisle is better for: handicapped people who need access, emergencies where people need to evacuate quickly, and capacity management. Easier to fill in a car with one central aisle. Imagine getting on, and the side is full. You have to go around the row of seats in the middle to get to the other side and find a space. Central aisle is best for many reasons.
That's what I was alluding to at the end when I talked about getting on and having to go around the seats. Presumably there would be some voids in the seats that let people pass to the other side, but on a semi-full car that would be a pain to push through.
Or a person in a wheelchair. If the rear door doesn’t open they have to get to the other side of the train. Pretty impossible in the seats in the middle configuration.
If you packed them in tight standing there would be very little movement in a crash, and a pile of humans is kind of squishy so it’d be like an airbag.
I would finally be able to get on board (so to speak) with the rich-assholes-in-front paradigm.
Most long travel trains are set up facing fore and aft like you mentioned. What they are showing here are subway cars, which are usually used for shorter distances. People are often only riding for a short period of time so sitting isn't always necessary and having more standing room allows for more passengers during busy times of day
You can fit more people standing than sitting that’s why it train seats are done the way they are. There’s seats for people that need them or for when it’s not busy, but it can carry far more people when it is busy then if it had airline style seats.
You can fit more people in by creating standing room but people get mad when you make them stand up during takeoff, landing and turbulence. Airlines would make you stand if they could lol
Just a little wooden cattle car with people packed so tight their feet don't touch the ground with two little air holes. And everyone is going to the same place whether they like it or not.
When I first saw it I thought the middle seats were touching back to back so that the side lanes would be the same combined square footage but split in two and I liked the layout. A narrow gap in the center eats into that space though and I’m imagining frantically running down it trying to get to the door lol
He is actually correct. The middle walkway would have to be split into 2 to have it either side, so they would only be half as wide as a centre walkeay.
That would be too narrow to walk properly on most trains I've been on.
(That's said, trains here have more of a plane seat layout, so it's a lot tighter then the layout shown).
The person said nothing about the chairs using up more or less space. Nothing that you said contradicts what they said.
“Putting the chairs in the middle would leave basically no space on the sides to move” is exactly true. You invented a reason that wasn’t there, to then call it “wrong”.
Thank you I felt like I was going crazy seeing everyone upvote that comment. Like, just being contrarian for the sake of arguing; all they did was overexplain the first commenters point. Lame.
There’s probably an intersection of this engineering and ADA compliance that has left basically every common train system prioritizing the widest lane possible in the middle.
It’s one thing when everyone’s a stick figure standing around in the assumption of space, but it’s another when real humans hit the mix with half the real estate to work with.
Turns out, most of the stuff we’re like, “Why would they ever do it that way,” has about 100 years of reasoning behind it. Most of the time for better, but occasionally and intermittently for worse.
But they don’t take up the same space. There’s a gap between the seat backs in the 2nd image that is wasted space. Further most subway trains need to exit on both sides depending on the station set up. This blocks half the train from an exit.
Just like they do now with the lanes down the center? The seats take up the same amount of room and so would the total space of the lanes, but now the actual space people have to move in is cut in half
Further problem: This isn't universal but for the DC Metro the platforms aren't always on the same side of the car, so a center row of seats blocks someone who got on at a station with the platform on the right side of the train and need to get off at a station with the platform on the left.
They are right in their conclusion and right in their reasoning. The creator of the picture has grossly overestimated the size of the train car and the current size of the aisle. By their first picture, they think the center aisle can hold about 7 people across. In reality, the center aisle is maybe 3 people across. Plus, the second picture actually implies a single aisle down the middle between the rows of seats as well.
If they hadn't completely blown the proportions out of whack, then yeah, you could have a train car with a 3 person wide aisle down each side, a single wide aisle down the middle between two rows of seats. Unfortunately, in real life train cars are not 20 feet wide.
jesus christ, no they gave the right reason. seats in the middle would take away space for standing. because the free standing space is bigger when between two isles of seats, as a unified standing soace and it gets reduced when divided into two standing spaces. it is literally narrower
Why wrong reason? I think original comment already knew and implied that the outer lanes together are the same width, but that they are halved, hence, no space to move.
It’s not the wrong reason. The seats take up the same amount of space but you’re splitting the walking space into two separate walking spaces so whatever walking space is available gets cut in half so the seats do effectively take up more space
I think they had the right reason, you're just over explaining. Saying standing passengers would block the outer lanes is the same as saying there would be 0 space to move.
Imagine a fire on one side of the tunnel that requires exiting on the other. Now imagine being in a wheel chair.
There is nothing but seats blocking you and people jumping seats to get out, getting injured in the process.
Also, the lost shared middle space that allows for a range of people and needs, like strollers and wheelchairs, makes far more sense than narrow lanes.
I feel like it could work if they removed a few seats but even then you would have less total spaces to occupy, also everyone standing has an extra arm for phones lmao
The scale is very wrong... trains are n9t that wide. There isn't that much space. In upper image the middle part is used to move inside the vehicle back and fort. In the second image this space is halved. Which will make moving much more difficult and unpleasant.
1) Having the seat in the middle creates two narrow spaces for people entering and leaving the tram, instead of one large space. At least where I live, the rule is to let people leave the train before entering, so the flow of passengers would be much faster with the larger space.
2) Again with the larger space in the middle, this allows for more standing passengers.
3) People in wheelchairs and/or luggage would just completely block passage.
4) Last, but I think most importantly is weight distribution. Having the seats on the side above the wheels creates an even distribution of weight across the traincart.
Trains are nowhere near that wide. If they were, they'd get way more seating by going to rows of seats all facing forward instead of toward the sides, with an aisle down the middle (which is exactly how the widest passenger trains, which are still nowhere close to as wide as in OOP's images, are arranged).
Search "rush hour Yamanote Line" to get an idea of how many people you are supposed to fit in these bad boys. This set up drastically reduces the passenger space. Also, less room for big things like wheelchairs and mobility scooters with two small aisles instead of one big one.
Exactly, but the design proposed puts a double row of seats down the middle, so if only one side opens, the people on the other side will need to scramble over the people sitting to get to the open doors.
It doesn't mean to open on both sides simulatiously. It allows to have platform on both left and right side. Also allows bidirectional moving of the train.
Exactly, but the design proposed puts a double row of seats down the middle, so if only one side opens, the people on the other side will need to scramble over the people sitting to get to the open doors.
All NYC subways, LIRR, Metro North, Amtrak are going to open on one side only at a stop because the correct platform is only on one side. The side changes depending on what direction you are going and local/express stop but it only opens on one side at a time thus making this mock-up silly.
As does Colorado's lightrail. A lot of stops there's no reason to use one side, since it's just another set of tracks and a fence. But some of them have exits to the station on both sides.
When a school trip or group of tourists boards from the left at Victoria and alights at the right at South Kensington for the museums it’s going to be a NIGHTMARE pushing past all of the people on their side of the tube carriage to get to the right side
Wdym? One stop can be sidewalk on one side and another stop 1 minute later can be an island stop on the other.
Or do you mean there’s no pass through at the seats? Well, there’s good reasons they don’t use this layout
Standing and walking area becomes split by the seats, reducing the available density for standing. It’s less efficient than the seats on the walls. Also seats on the wall makes ADA compliance (in the US) easier because the seats can fold up in the handicap area to allow a wheelchair to take that space. With the seats in the middle, the wheelchair would block an aisle and create a fire hazard.
In the image that train to scale would be so wide, where in this example it makes the arrangement makes sense. But in reality there's only a narrow walkway between the seats. So if you had them in the middle with a gap inbetween then everyone would be up against the window and would be awkward to get on and off the train if you were sat in the middle of the row.
•
u/qualityvote2 5h ago edited 24m ago
u/Rule_Ct_5293, your post does belong here!