DynamicSpirit
Established Member
The problem with that argument is that the seat layout is needed initially on both the peaks and the shoulders of the peaks.
This is not the case on all lines, and I disagree with the all longitudinal seating for the Liverpool Street services, but for the specific useage patterns of the Golbin where you need large capacity and short dwell times for passengers making short distance intra-urban journeys this is the right layout. Nobody would quibble if it were a London Underground line, and yet the line serves a similar function.
What about the arrangement I seem to recall you see on some of the Met line trains where there is some transverse seating, but placed so that there's transverse seating on one side of the carriage only, with longitudinal seating on the other side, so there's still plenty of room for people to move? I can't see that kind of arrangement would have any significant impact either on boarding or on train capacity, and it would at least give a choice for those people who do prefer transverse seating.
I imagine part of the reason people wouldn't quibble so much on underground lines is because they mainly run in tunnels, so not being able to look out of the windows doesn't make much of an impact. (Plus to tube trains are obviously smaller, so transverse seating is obviously less practical)