How to view scenery from longitudal seating

[Swadian Hardcore]

I've been wondering about this for a long time. In those transit vehicles with a majority or only longitudal seating, how are you supposed to look outside? I mean, if you sit faced "forward", you're really just looking at the passenger across from you. Does anyone have a special way to look outside while sitting longitudal?

 

[SubwayNut]

It's relatively easy as long as the train isn't standing room only. You sit with your legs angled a bit and look out the window. Taking up maybe one and a half seats. If its crowded and every seat is taken its harder. Generally reading a book or dozing, I don't need to look out the window. The main subway line I ride has back to back two seaters by each set of windows but I never sit in these seats (R46s and R68s), all other NYC subway cars are only longitudinal. My legs are too long to fit in the window seat (the ones on the subway are extremely tight), I used to like the window seat as a kid. I ended up in it a few weeks ago and had forgotten just how tight the legroom is (rougher than most airplanes and its not the seat in front of you but the side of another seat and someone else). I have a friend who's 5'3" or 5"4' and the window is his favorite spot, no legroom issues. The aisle seat means there is a pole at your head if you try and lean your head back and it isn't comfortable. I avoid siting there too.

Swadian, vertually all transit buses have longitudinal seating, go ride a local bus and try it!

 

[SarahZ]

The CTA has been switching gradually, and it's not as weird as you'd think.

You can either sit at an angle, as SubwayNut mentioned, or you just look over the other person's head. I can tell when someone is looking out the window versus staring right at me, but it probably helps that I'm not that tall.

When I'm across from a tall person, I just read a book or check AU on my phone. Or, I'll just look over the person next to them. If the bus/train is crowded, I'll stand up for a second to get a better view.

It's kind of hard to describe, but it really isn't as goofy as you might imagine. People have adapted to it.

Edited to add: The best part about it, for me, is that the L doesn't have any backwards seating anymore. I used to hate getting stuck with one of those. I'd end up standing, even if the train was only half-full.

 

[Trogdor]

The CTA has been switching gradually, and it's not as weird as you'd think.

Had been, but stopped.

The decision-making process that went into making longitudinal seats on the new 5000-series railcars was not very well thought-out (brought to you by the same people that gave us the multi-hundred-million-dollar hole in the ground at Block 37 figuring that we'd have express trains to both airports by 2009, despite there being no express tracks, a Blue Line that was falling apart, no equipment, and...oh, right, we're talking longitudinal seating). Point is, those folks are long gone.

The next order for new railcars, as I understand, will go back to transverse seating, as the passenger outcry was so great against the seating in the 5000s. The reason they couldn't change the seating in the 5000s (which are currently being built, about halfway through the order at the moment) is because Bombardier designed all sorts of equipment to go into the underseat area, and that would require redesigning the car, which comes at major cost for an existing contracted order. However, for a new order, that will no longer be applicable.

CTA also toyed around with longitudinal seating on buses being delivered during the same period (2008-2009 ish), and immediately went back to the traditional transverse-style seating for subsequent bus orders.

 

[SarahZ]

That's too bad. So the system is going to have a mix of seating now, or are they going to sell all of the 5000-series railcars?

I like the new railcars. The blue color is much better than that beige/brown scheme.

 

[Trogdor]

No way they'd sell the 5000s (they're basically custom-built, nobody else would want them) and it would be a waste of money. They're just not going to buy any more with that seating configuration once the current order is complete.

As for a mix of seating, that's been the case since forever. Each series of rail cars they've operated has had some seating configuration differences from the previous one. The 2200s (just retired) had the most transverse seating. My memory is a little fuzzy already, so I can't remember if they had any sideways seats, even by the doors (I think they didn't). The 2400s have seating configuration changes to accommodate wheelchairs. The 2600s are similar to the 2400s, except that the seats behind the operators cab face away from the cab (towards the center of the car) instead of out the front window.

The 3200s had the biggest change, in that they went to 2+1 seating instead of 2+2, to increase standee capacity. My understanding is that the new 7000 series cars will have seating similar to the 3200s.

 

[SarahZ]

Oh, you're right! I've noticed, but I've never really noticed, if that makes sense. Once you described the different cars, I realized I'd seen all of those at some point. It just didn't really register that they were different at the time.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

It's relatively easy as long as the train isn't standing room only. You sit with your legs angled a bit and look out the window. Taking up maybe one and a half seats. If its crowded and every seat is taken its harder. Generally reading a book or dozing, I don't need to look out the window. The main subway line I ride has back to back two seaters by each set of windows but I never sit in these seats (R46s and R68s), all other NYC subway cars are only longitudinal. My legs are too long to fit in the window seat (the ones on the subway are extremely tight), I used to like the window seat as a kid. I ended up in it a few weeks ago and had forgotten just how tight the legroom is (rougher than most airplanes and its not the seat in front of you but the side of another seat and someone else). I have a friend who's 5'3" or 5"4' and the window is his favorite spot, no legroom issues. The aisle seat means there is a pole at your head if you try and lean your head back and it isn't comfortable. I avoid siting there too.

Swadian, vertually all transit buses have longitudinal seating, go ride a local bus and try it!

I like the R46 and R68 because they're 75-footers and don't have only longitudal seating. I'm fine with the window seats in those, the legroom isn't great but it's much easier for me to view the scenery. Helps that the A, B, D, and F are all not bad on scenery. I really don't like any of the IRT cars, they're so narrow. The 7 Flushing Line uses R62A's and they have longitudal bucket seating, so probably can't do your "tilt".

Personally, I like the BMT/IND a lot more than the IRT. I don't really like the NTT's for their weird violin sound. Not very tall (5'11") so R46 and R68 with the window seats are the best for me. I like the R32 as well, the clanking sound and it's really wide inside. Frigging IRT sucks, crowded and narrow, the pax need to get on the B/D if they want to get to the Bronx without getting squished. JMO.

 

[fairviewroad]

FWIW, I doubt the average work-a-day subway commuter really cares about looking out the window. I think the issue

is how your body is positioned in relation to the motion of the train. NYC commuters either grew up with this type of

seating or get used to it quickly. Chicago commuters, not so much.

Personally, I'd rather stand instead of sitting sideways.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

FWIW, I doubt the average work-a-day subway commuter really cares about looking out the window. I think the issue

is how your body is positioned in relation to the motion of the train. NYC commuters either grew up with this type of

seating or get used to it quickly. Chicago commuters, not so much.

Personally, I'd rather stand instead of sitting sideways.

Wait, you'd rather stand than sit in transverse seating? But almost all intericty vehicles have trnasverse seating! Are your talking about longitudal seating as "sitting sideways"?

I think that a lot of people do care about looking out the window, especially after a day at work. Even the BMT Triplex had transverse seating.

 

[fairviewroad]

FWIW, I doubt the average work-a-day subway commuter really cares about looking out the window. I think the issue

is how your body is positioned in relation to the motion of the train. NYC commuters either grew up with this type of

seating or get used to it quickly. Chicago commuters, not so much.

Personally, I'd rather stand instead of sitting sideways.

Wait, you'd rather stand than sit in transverse seating? But almost all intericty vehicles have trnasverse seating! Are your talking about longitudal seating as "sitting sideways"?

I think that a lot of people do care about looking out the window, especially after a day at work. Even the BMT Triplex had transverse seating.

Maybe I'm lost in terms of the difference between transverse and longitudinal. To clarify, I'd rather stand than sit facing "inwards". But my overall

preference would be to sit facing forwards, as one does in a car or in a Greyhound bus (regardless of model).

As far as looking out the window, we're talking about subway/rapid transit lines. Many of them are underground for all or part of their journey. And the

ones that are above ground, well the scenery is the same day-in, day-out. I just think it gets old rather quickly to most people.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

FWIW, I doubt the average work-a-day subway commuter really cares about looking out the window. I think the issue

is how your body is positioned in relation to the motion of the train. NYC commuters either grew up with this type of

seating or get used to it quickly. Chicago commuters, not so much.

Personally, I'd rather stand instead of sitting sideways.

Wait, you'd rather stand than sit in transverse seating? But almost all intericty vehicles have trnasverse seating! Are your talking about longitudal seating as "sitting sideways"?

I think that a lot of people do care about looking out the window, especially after a day at work. Even the BMT Triplex had transverse seating.

Maybe I'm lost in terms of the difference between transverse and longitudinal. To clarify, I'd rather stand than sit facing "inwards". But my overall

preference would be to sit facing forwards, as one does in a car or in a Greyhound bus (regardless of model).

As far as looking out the window, we're talking about subway/rapid transit lines. Many of them are underground for all or part of their journey. And the

ones that are above ground, well the scenery is the same day-in, day-out. I just think it gets old rather quickly to most people.

Ah, I understand now, yes, a much better view is possible when standing compared to sitting facing inwards (longitudal seating). But I must disagree about the scenery, when I lived in Philadelphia, I rode the Market-Frankford EL many many times, and while the daytime scenery was somewhat boring after a while, the sunrise/sunset and night scenes were always interesting. I would gladly take a ride on the MFL today with a camera to boot.

The system with a large umber of longitudal seating, NYCS, has its fair share of scenic routes, including Brighton Line, Flushing Line, Jamaica Line, Rockaway Line, Culver Line, and presumably the Dyre Avenue Line, White Plains Road Line, or Pelham Line. Since I have an aversion to the IRT, I've taken very few of their trains on my visit to New York.