UIC seat numbering

[Neil Williams]

Just something that's always made me wonder....

What is the logic behind seat numbering in 2+2-seated non-compartment
coaches? I can see that, in seat 41, say, the 4 is the "compartment"
number, but what about the second number? It doesn't seem to always
allow for consecutive numbers to either be alongside one another nor
opposite.

I assume there is a reason for it being as it is, though - so what is
it?

Thanks

Neil

[Ross]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:54:42 -0800 (PST), Neil Williams

Post by Neil Williams
Just something that's always made me wonder....
What is the logic behind seat numbering in 2+2-seated non-compartment
coaches? I can see that, in seat 41, say, the 4 is the "compartment"
number, but what about the second number? It doesn't seem to always
allow for consecutive numbers to either be alongside one another nor
opposite.
I assume there is a reason for it being as it is, though - so what is
it?

My assumption is that the numbering system is designed for 3-aside
compartments, with the seats on one side (e.g. facing) numbered x1,
x3, x5 and seats opposite x2, x4, x6.

I'm assuming that at one time only those seats (which would presumably
have been 1st class) would have been reservable; at that time it
wasn't necessary to create a numbering system for the 4-aside seats
used in 2nd class compartments.

When it was later decided to make 4-aside seating generally reservable
then an extra seat on each side had to be added into the system, which
logically were numbered x7 and x8.

But... presumably someone somewhere argued that 3-aside seating was in
use as 2nd class on their railway, so the window seat numbering
couldn't be changed and thus it must be one of the two middle seats
which got the new number.

IIRC it seems to be the third seat of the four from the left (2nd from
the right) as you face the seats which has the highest number, so it
seems an attempt has been made at consistency - it just doesn't seem
very logical when you look at the seat numbers in a compartment.

Later open stock with a central aisle became the norm and the seats
were split either side of that aisle but retaining the same numbering
sequence, which leaves us with the messy seat numbering of today.

That's all just my assumption as to how it came about, of course.

[Neil Williams]

Post by Ross
That's all just my assumption as to how it came about, of course.

Makes sense. I thought it might be something like that but couldn't
quite get my head around it.

Neil

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Ross
I'm assuming that at one time only those seats (which would presumably
have been 1st class) would have been reservable; at that time it
wasn't necessary to create a numbering system for the 4-aside seats
used in 2nd class compartments.

I grew up with the Bm234 and 235 ("UIC-X"), and there were no 4-aside
seats.

2nd class of my childhood was 3+3, all of them. The difference between
1st and 2nd was 12 compartments vs. 10 compartments.



That's the cars I grew up in:
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...



Hans-Joachim

[Ross]

On 13 Jan 2011 22:40:06 GMT, Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Ross
I'm assuming that at one time only those seats (which would presumably
have been 1st class) would have been reservable; at that time it
wasn't necessary to create a numbering system for the 4-aside seats
used in 2nd class compartments.

I grew up with the Bm234 and 235 ("UIC-X"), and there were no 4-aside
seats.
2nd class of my childhood was 3+3, all of them. The difference between
1st and 2nd was 12 compartments vs. 10 compartments.

OK, so at that time there was no need for the extra numbers in any
class (at least where German 2.cl was concerned)

Presumably my supposition about no 2nd class reservations was also
wrong?

I don't know when you grew up, so I don't know what era we're talking
about (looking at the images you linked to, I guess late 60s? Early
70s?), but would I be right in guessing that the 4-aside compartment
stock was introduced late 70s/early 80s?

In the UK by then we'd mostly adopted the open layout for new build
hauled stock, especially for 2nd class, mainly I think because more
seats could be squeezed in.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Ross
OK, so at that time there was no need for the extra numbers in any
class (at least where German 2.cl was concerned)
Presumably my supposition about no 2nd class reservations was also
wrong?

The reservation holders displayed towards the aisle. In those days, a
guard could only hope for good preparation by yard crew, otherwise, he
would walk the whole train putting them in.
Of course, on long runs, they had to be exchanged en route by the train
crew.

Post by Ross
I don't know when you grew up, so I don't know what era we're talking
about (looking at the images you linked to, I guess late 60s? Early
70s?),

In the 60s, I traveled with Silberlinge and similar stock, long distance
trains wouldn't stop at the nearby stations. Silberlinge looked like
Loading Image...
in those days. Looks awful and was no comfort wonder, but the seats used
"Federkern" (spring core?) construction, and were more comfortable on
longer runs than DB Regio's stuff of today.

In the second half of the 70s, I did 5-digit figures per year by long
distance rail, and the Bm234/Bm235 became my second home. (Back then,
I didn't know that they were Bm235. I wasn't interested in other aspects
of the railroad but its usability.)

Post by Ross
but would I be right in guessing that the 4-aside compartment
stock was introduced late 70s/early 80s?

It never was. I'm not aware of any 4-aside compartment stock of the
Bundesbahn. This was a misfeature of the GDR Reichsbahn. But in the late
70s, the first 2nd class cars with airline style seating appeared in
long distance trains, with 2+2 seating. I avoided them like the plague.
So I didn't know how the cars were called, or anything technical about
them, but I was well able to tell the good ones apart from the bad ones
on half a kilometer of distance.

Post by Ross
In the UK by then we'd mostly adopted the open layout for new build
hauled stock, especially for 2nd class, mainly I think because more
seats could be squeezed in.

IC '79 brought a lot of these to Germany either, but they would have
open layout 2+2 new cars in the middle, and older compartment cars at
the end, so you just had to walk to the end of the platform.


Hans-Joachim

[Neil Williams]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Ross
but would I be right in guessing that the 4-aside compartment
stock was introduced late 70s/early 80s?

It never was.

...in Germany, where you're right in saying that legroom[1] rather
than seat width was the differentiator. France, however, did I think
go for 4-aside in a fairly big way in second class, didn't it? And
UIC numbering needs to handle that in all member countries.

[1] Amusingly, there is *more* legroom in second class in most Swiss
IC/IR single-deck coaches than in first class, as the spacing is the
same (except the oldest coaches) but the second class seats are
thinner. Rather silly.

Neil

[tobias b koehler]

Post by Neil Williams
...in Germany, where you're right in saying that legroom[1] rather
than seat width was the differentiator. France, however, did I think
go for 4-aside in a fairly big way in second class, didn't it?

Yes, for example in UIC-Y cars (which had a slightly wider body) and
even some of the Corail cars (mostly intended for internal trains, for
cross-border they had 6-seat compartments).

Post by Neil Williams
[1] Amusingly, there is *more* legroom in second class in most Swiss
IC/IR single-deck coaches than in first class, as the spacing is the
same (except the oldest coaches) but the second class seats are
thinner. Rather silly.

Which rolling stock are you referring to?

In the EC both classes have 10 groups of seats along the length ....
In the EW IV, 1st class has 10 whereas 2nd class has 11.
In the IC 2000 it's also different if you take the number of windows as
an indicator (I don't have a ground plan at hand).

toby

[Neil Williams]

Post by tobias b koehler
In the EC both classes have 10 groups of seats along the length ....

Those ones. Because the first class seats have thicker seat backs,
you get less legroom than in second class.

Neil

[Giovanni Drogo]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
2nd class of my childhood was 3+3, all of them.

In Italy 2nd class used to be 4+4 (*) ... however I guess nobody used to
reserve at the time on D and DD trains (only Rapidi, but I took my first
rapido, one of the few with 2nd class, when I was 15, and my first 1st
class when I was a few years older).

(*) except perhaps Centoporte ("hundred doors"), but I do not remember
whether they had an aisle (or I'm getting confused with something I saw
in the UK much later ?)
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrozza_Centoporte

[tobias b koehler]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
I grew up with the Bm234 and 235 ("UIC-X"), and there were no 4-aside
seats.

But the early DB still had some pre-war compartment cars (ex third
class) which had 8-seat compartments. Some of them may have been rebuilt
to 6-seat for their last years.

There were of course also reservable open cars (such as the Byl type of
the 1950s) ....

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
http://dstrombeck.de/Bm234/Bild3_Bm234_innen2.jpg

I don't remember adjustable headrests in any Bm 234, that must have been
an exception, an experimental car maybe?

tobias