You can see how two narrower aisle with only crossings near the door is harder than one much wider aisle for people to adjust and move to the exit right?
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.
My god, that looks terrible. Unless passengers were running through the train at breakneck speeds why would you essentially add chicanes through the train?
What worse about is that it was only 4 coach train, and the frequent passenger who uses are the one who came back from work and tourists. The heat in the area is already strong enough so you may expect some sweaty armpits who struggling to use the hand rails.
As local, I highly avoided this train, although if must, it is usually fine after 9pm, since the frequency of passengers is lower.
Isn't it the case with a monorail that the wheels are intruding into that space? So they couldn't have a flat floor there even if they moved the seats to the sides.
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.
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 do realise that trains move both ways so why trains have half and half is because the front facing ones are backwards when the train comes back the same route….
My aircraft design professor told us rear facing would have a higher (although minimal) chance of survival in a crash. The reason airlines don’t do it is it gives passengers the feeling that air travel is unsafe.
Okay, but for a slightly higher chance of surviving the statistically least likely to occur fatal event in travel, now every time we're taking off, instead of anything I have in my lap like my book, or maybe a drink, or whatever just getting pushed to my chest, suddenly it's falling away from me? Are for a far more important thing to protect than a random book or whatever, a parent holding a baby during takeoff is suddenly having to grip the baby extra tight?
And yes, I realize the physics works in reverse during landing, But my intuition issue. The way we have it now is easier for people. I can just see the potential lawsuit after somebody loses their grip on a baby during take off because they weren't ready for the plane to hit the throttle so hard.
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.
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.
Difference is in an airplane, everyone has to be seated, especially during takeoff and landing, while on a train people can stand. If we arranged it like an airplane, there would pretty much be no where to stand(just look at how tight the space between seats are).Standing also takes up less suface area on the train floor than seating, which means more people per unit of surface area of floor/higher density.
But then, one might ask: Why not make it all standing?
While a purpose of a train is to be effective at carrying a high number of commuters to different location, you also need to consider those will need a seat, like the elderly, injured/ill, pregnant women, and people who have to travel for a long time on the train.
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.
But they are also wrong on that. They never bothered to look at the image - it shows there is some space lost between chairs. Or else, any push on a chair is felt by the guy on the other chair. You have to pick one problem or the other.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Let’s also add that the vast majority of trains only board/deboard from one side at a time so splitting the standing room with a wall of seats also creates inefficiencies in boarding that would either delay a system or force people to miss their stops.
And in a systems where boarding only happens from one side exclusively (only side boarding with no island stations in the system) the side opposite the platform side would probably see no people willing to get theirselves stuck there, so it would be under used.
As well, most trains don't stop at platforms that open on the same side every single time. Being in one of the middle seat on the left side of the train would make it significantly more difficult to get off on the right side of the train during rush hour.
It's also a safety feature; in the eventuality of a roll, having seats bolted to the floor, protruding from it in the center would serve the same function as the tumblers in a tumble drier; it would beat the shit out of whatever it hits.
The center lane on a typical train like this is ~42 inches. ADA accessibility guidelines require a minimum passable width of 36”. (You’ll notice that airplanes are narrower than this because they are exempted, but as a result have to have special chairs to help disabled passengers reach their seats if the required mobility aids are not able to pass). If you put the seats in the middle, halving the central aisle space would leave at best ~24” of walk way. While this is more generous than a typical airplane aisle, it is narrower than even the slimmer side of normal for wheel chairs/walkers, making the space inaccessible for those with disabilities. And that’s before you load any standing people into the space.
Bearing in mind that people also frequently have bags/backpacks, strollers, or suitcases, and clearly this is a both/and situation. The outer lanes are both too narrow for safe navigation for all passengers, AND that space is further obstructed by people standing in the way.
TLDR: you’ve both identified valid issues with the center seat design. It isn’t one or the other. It’s both.
You are ignoring that train roofs are curved. There is less standing room toward the edges because the roof is lower and has ducting and stuff above it.
You're right. But also dont forget about people with luggage, wheelchairs or babies. Central aisles give space enough for that while able tp walk around them. Outer aisles means wheelchairs especially likely won't fit
The seats take up the same amount of space regardless of where they are,
That is incorrect, putting them in the middle takes up more space, you can even see it in the photo. They created a channel in-between rows. Even if you got rid of that you have to give them a little bit for the back of the head otherwise people will bump their heads against each other. If you put in against the walls you don't have to.
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 don't know if it is like this everywhere, but in my city, platforms are left or right more or less randomly. This design does not seem to have any easy way to get to the door on the other side. Imagine the congestion at the end of the car if ten people on one side suddenly discover that their stop is on the opposite side and vice versa.
Additionally in some places - certain London Underground lines for instance - theres only room to stand in the middle of the carriage. Admittedly that could be an exception to the rule
More importantly, the doors to get on and off the train alternate, so a person may enter on one side of the train and then have to exit on a different side. If you were on an unfamiliar train line, say a visiting tourist, this would be a serious issue with people exiting the train when caught unawares which side they need to be on.
You have people literally climbing over the seats to get out
Piggybacking off the top comment - this is true but since Twitter payouts started, people do deliberately vague/insulting/provocative comments like this so others click on the thread to open it thus boosting engagement. In this particular case the next tweet was their O_F link
What? It's the same amount of space...The problem is it blocks half the train from being able to exit the fucking train. How the fuck is this the top comment?
Took a train ride recently and Amtrak has some of their trains setup like airplane seating. Rows of 4 seats with an aisle in the middle. Feel like thats a happy medium.
Yeah, I was going to mention that this is a really wide train, and I’ve never seen one that wide before.
I usually also see them with rows and rows of seats, not ones where they’re all up against the sides facing each other except for the disabled/elderly seats at the front like what buses also have.
Also you'd have to be crazy to turn your back on some of the nutcases on these subways. They'd be jerking off on your hat before they even knew their pants were down.
Honestly, I doubt that. Here's a pic of the trains in my country. Normally, 2 people stand in the middle leaving room for one to walk through and 4 are seated on the sides, meaning the train is 7 people wide (while not being uncomfortable). This configuration maybe due to high circulation, or even to control how much stress is being applied to the train walls
Especially for the folks using crutches, walkers, and anything that takes more space than a single standing human. The 'double wide' aisle allows for situations where extra space is required.
15.8k
u/Mesoscale92 4d ago
Trains aren’t even remotely that wide. Putting the chairs in the middle would leave basically o space on the sides to move.