From Facebook as the caption to a picture:

 
All my journeys in the past three years have been very local and I have aimed for a seat away from other people because of Covid. If going into Reading from Tilehurst or vice versa I don't mind standing, though off peak the trains are all but empty.

When I did long-distance journeys, I would aim for a seat with a good view out of the window, not that I would peer out of it all the time. From 1999 to 2005 I travelled to Torquay once a month or so by several routes (and even welcomed the odd diversion such as when I went via Warminster) and was happy to see again some of the scenery from my cycling days.

I try to avoid facing non-table seats because of my dislike of passengers putting their feet up on them.

 
Having been negative in my previous post in this thread, here are my criteria on contemporary trains (assuming travelling standard class)-

1 - Any zone or coach that is 4 not 5-across seating where there is a choice.
2 - A window seat, preferably forward facing and by a window that aligns with the seat rather than a pillar.
3 - If travelling with someone else - in a group of 4 facing seats, otherwise "aircraft style" fine.
4 - It eating, a table (which can be a folding one if travelling aircraft style - those on the last refurbishment of GW HSTs, GW Electrostars and XC Voyagers are all fine) - also useful if working, BUT as I often was reviewing documents that needed to be treated as confidential before I retired, a table between a group of 4 was no help. I think I mastered the art of working discreetly on documents on a train, but was sometimes mildly horrified at fellow passengers who would nonchalantly open their laptops on tables allowing any nosey fellow passenger to peek at what they were reading or typing.
5 - If travelling on a Turbo with a down-graded first-class zone at one end - use that area. The first class seats on Turbos were the opposite end of the comfort spectrum to the standard class ones. In the absence of such seats, then the groups of 4 around tables in class 166s used to be next best. It was a shame that most of the tables were removed and much of these were sacrificed when disabled loos and wheelchair areas (with no fold up seats for use when not used for wheelchairs - a serious omission as well) were provided. Also on Turbos - avoid the area around the loos.

 
I find airlines are best for the leg space. Not so much for the legs themselves as for space to place a bag with them. Doesn't work too well on a 153 though. I wonder if TfW's Active Travel upgrade will do anything about that!

 
I prefer an airline seat. My legs have more space. Sitting opposite other people, I often have to fold my legs underneath my seat.

 
Back in 1978, myself and a university friend joined a weekend excursion from Euston to Inverness - travelling up on the Friday night and back in the early hours of Sunday. We were allocated seats in a Mark 1 compartment of 8. Ever tried sleeping in a full compartment? Not a hope!

 
For GWR

On an HST:
In 1st It could be any seat with a table: a single (24 - buffet car only), double (1 and 6) or a four seat.
In Standard coach A (73) first choice otherwise it was pretty much a free for all.

On a 165/Thames Turbo*:
In 1st any seat as they were equally comfortable but preferred rear facing seats.
In Standard any seat so long as someone wasn’t sitting next to me.

On a class 8xx with my cushion:

In 1st it’s a large table or if very busy seat (59) in the kitchen carriage which has a larger table from memory.
In Standard again a table is preferred but if busy anything with a window will do.

*I’d still rather have the 1st seats out of a Thames Turbo than the seats on a class 8xx.

 
If we're in rose-tinted-spectacles mode, give me the seat behind the driver where you could see through the glass out the front of the train, and learn the route and how to drive a train too.  

 
It depends on the train. On an IET I’ll generally try for a non-table window seat. But if it’s a Voyager and I’ve got a laptop, it’s a table or nothing - where “nothing” might mean sitting on the floor in the vestibule. One of the reasons I try and avoid CrossCountry wherever possible!

 
Travelling north from Oxford in the late 70's on a cross-country train usually with a class 50 on the front. First class tended to be towards the front which is where I headed with my bike as there was always a BSK at the very front with some isolated, and often completely empty, standard class compartments whilst the rest of the train could be packed solid in standard. Change at Birmingham New Street where I got to know the subterranean ramps and passageways for the BRUTEs and postals. Could often make a connection there on the bike that would be missed by those on foot via the stairs. Ramps all gone now, last time I looked, but what a dingy miserable place it still is today.

 

You make a number of good points, eightonedee. My memories are mostly of leisure trips on fairly lightly-loaded cross-country trains (Bristol - Southampton, or up to Holyhead) where often you could have a compartment to yourself. One abiding memory is a trip from Inverness to Wick/Thurso in which we strung our soaking wet tent between the luggage racks to dry it out. With the steam and electric heat on full whack, and the windows open, it dried out perfectly. No-one complained!

You do remind me though of how grumpy people could get when the trains were more crowded and you had to ask them to budge up.

In my recollection, compartment stock was often in mixed rakes with open carriages though. So you could generally choose according what suited you best.

I can remember some dodgy springs on Mk 1's, but I don't remember having to get up and walk around to relieve the pain as you do after 45 minutes on a Class 800!

 
If possible I generally choose a Window 'Airline' seat when travelling alone and with SWTSMBO we always try and get a Window / Aisle 'Airline' combo. Except when travelling LNER 1st Class where the single seats are favoured.

 
Red Squirrel writes in praise of compartments but he doesn't mention one of their best attributes: the corridor. A neutral space which can be used to hold private one-on-one conversations or to escape the conversations others are holding, to be alone or in company, to enjoy the view from the other side, to stand rather than sit, to walk (or maybe run, if you're small) up and down, to eat in peace or to escape the smell and sight of what others are eating, or just for a change of atmosphere. All this and offering overflow seating!

Red Squirrel highlights conversation in compartments. I've had interesting (and awful) conversations with strangers in compartments and at tables, but never in side-by-side seating. Which leads me to wonder what is it about compartments and table seating which encourages us to talk to strangers? It can't be the table itself, as compartments usually only a vestigial flap of table, just large enough for a sandwich and a cup of coffee, and even that only accessible to two of the compartments four, six or eight seats. I would have said it was sitting face-to-face – except that clearly doesn't encourage conversation on the underground! So I think perhaps it's the sense of being in an enclosed, but accessible, space. This is obvious with a compartment and a group of seats around a table replicates this in a way, with all the seats having a common focus. Table seating also, of course, replicates a cafe, pub or restaurant arrangement.

 
If I am travelling alone, it depends on the purpose of the trip. If it is just a means of getting from A to B, I'll just sit wherever I can. If it is a leisure trip, I will look for a window seat facing forward and do not worry whether the seat is at a table or not.

I recall a trip to London many moons ago with my wife and daughter when I managed to get cheap 1st Class Advances in both directions between Pinhoe and Waterloo. No such thing as specified seats, so we just sat at the first available table on boarding at Waterloo. A short while after boarding, with the 1st Class section relatively sparcely populated, a 'City Gent type' boarded and approached us. "Excuse me, but this is my seat. I always sit here." Incredulous at the comment, I said there were plenty of other seats and these seats were not reserved, but he would have none of it. Thankfully, another passenger stepped in and just asked him to sit in another seat. With a grunt, he did so!  

 
despite the above shortcomings, I would still prefer an early type of BR coach to an IET.

 

As I have done before, can I put the case against Mk1 compartment stock, having been stuck with such stock most mornings during my first 2 and a half years' commuting in the early/mid 1980s?

You start the experience with a sliding door that often did not slide particularly well, set in an unnecessary internal partition wall that took up space and added to the weight of the vehicle. If it was busy, it would look and feel full with 6 occupants (3 a side) when it was meant to seat 8 (4 a side). Much as I don't favour 5 across because getting into that middle seat of 3 on the 3 side is seldom easy or pleasant, it was worse trying to get into the last of 4 on one side of a Mk1 compartment.

Yes you could sink into the seats, but often made unwelcome contact with the springs inside, and if they were not a good condition there was a lumpy experience to be had.

Moving onto the heating, there was the rotary heater control which enabled you to choose between roast or freeze. If some else had chosen roast, and you were close enough to try opening the sliding ventilator in the top of the window, it would resist all attempts to move until you reached the point of overcoming the friction, when it would shoot open well beyond the marks on the frame indicating where (in theory) you could open to without causing a draught.  But if you were stuck in that draught, or sensitive to those who had selected the "roast" option on the heater control, they would absolutely refuse to budge back into the "no draught" zone however hard you pushed them.

The ride was often poor, with hunting from side to side frequent. To cap it all, they were inefficient, with only 64  seats (nominal - actually more like 48 - see above!) in a (by the standards of the time) long wheelbase coach.

The only good thing was the fenestration (if you were lucky enough to be on the window rather than the corridor side, of course, the latter being hopeless). But at least the windows were of good size and aligned (necessarily) with the seating.

Only fit for short trips on heritage railways in my view!

If this was 40 years ago, I would be voting for an open Mk 2 anytime, please.  And I found conversations easier to start and acquaintances easier to make as a Turbo commuter when I resumed rail commuting in the 2000s - but this might have been "fellow sufferer" syndrome!

 

 
On an IEP, the driver's seat is by far the most comfortable, if you can get to it first.

Mark

 
On a mainline service, preferred seat is with a proper table, not a collapsing tray affixed to the seat in front.
Aligned with a window for the view. Ideally not on an IET as the seats are hard.

On the preserved WSR, a table is less important though still nice to have. My usual seat is one of the corner ones, that USED to have a table, but this has been removed. Most coaches have 16 such seats, the former table seats at each corner of the coach.
On a WSR DMU, I go for the former first class area which has better seats, now used for second class.

Most WSR trains are second class only, but I select first or Pullman when available as is sometimes the case for special events.

 

In answer to the woman,  I can tell her that sitting at a table rather than in an airline seat allows a (lone) traveller that much more space for a laptop or papers, plus a sandwich and drink (or equivalent).  The clue is in "table" rather than collapsible shelf. Also more foot room if no-one happens to sit opposite.

As an aside, how many tickets had Ms Anon bought?  I read "young kids" as likely to be under 5, and travelling free of charge.  So chances are that her gaggle of three is paying the same as the lady on her own.  I could start to ask some extreme questions as to why public transport allows the most disruptive of travellers (those in the "terrible twos") to travel free of charge, steps up to half fares as they get a bit better behaved, and then charges even more when we are considered (and usually are) fully responsible.     Why not turn it round the other way?

 
My preference is for somewhere I can keep an eye on the bike (Brompton). Rear seat on Voyagers large luggage area where you can tuck the bike behind. Sliding the bike under a table is problematical, as you end up effectively taking two seats, which is not immediately obvious to others wanting the space. On IETs usually stand in the bike space.

 
My preference is for a table if travelling in a group.  If I’m on my own or with one other person I prefer airline style seats unless I can almost guarantee I will have the table to myself.

I’d rather stand than risk having to share a table with a family.

So, the layout of most modern trains is just about ideal for my preferences.

 
Given a totally free choice, I’d go for a compartment every time. Mk 1’s, with seats you could sink into - remember when train seats were comfortable? If someone joined you, you could spark up an interesting conversation, or keep yourself to yourself if you preferred. Happy days…

 
I generally prefer seating at a table, although seat/window alignment is sometimes the deciding factor.

Generally happy to share a table with a family, and have sometimes offered to move so that people can sit together. Never a problem in the days of Mk1 TSOs as all seats had tables!

 
From The Mirror