Narrow Carriage
A look at what is currently available on eBay
 Oki Data 62418901 Microline 490 Forms, Narrow Carriage US $426.49 
|
 1951 Press Photo Kubelik Tours Through Narrow Austrian Streets In Open Carriage US $26.88
|
 Narrow Carriage Impact Printer US $152.99
|
Which seating formation do you think is best on standard class trains in the U.K., 2 by 2 or 3 by 2?
Personally, I think that 2 by 2 seating is better than 3 by 2 seating, because I am well-built. I find that 3 by 2 seating tends to be awfully narrow, and that our trains don't seem to be big enough for this type of seating formation.
I think that although carriages with 3 by 2 seating have more seats, I am not sure about whether or not they can actually carry more seated passengers, because anyone who is bigger than average ends up having to occupy more than one seat.
Also, I know that First Great Western (the main rail operator where I live) have converted many of their local trains from 3 by 2 seating to 2 by 2 seating, is this an indication that passengers prefer 2 by 2 seating?
However, what is your opinion, and do you agree or disagree with the above?
It is of course a matter of capacity. Three plus two seating on British trains has been around for over 100 years for high-use services, such as commuter trains and longer-distance 'Tourist' traffic. At the present time, the railway network is busier than it has been for decades, and so as to enable to allow as many people to have a seat as possible, 3+2 seating has become the norm in second (sorry, 'Standard') class. Also it is worth bearing in mind that although long-distance trains run faster since the advent of diesel and electric power, before this long-distance trains were longer, loading up to fifteen carriages in some cases. Only by using 3+2 seating can as many seats be provided as on the trains of old.
Personally, I prefer First Class, where there is only ever 1+2 seating!