On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:16:52 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
   > Planes are wider, so 3-2 on a train and 3-3 on a plane result in seats   
   > about the same width.   
      
   but not as much wider to accomodate the extra seat:   
   according to wikip, the 737 width is 11.583 feet, while a typical commuter   
   train is 10.5 feet.  Aside from the aisle, a train with 5 across has slightly   
   width than a plan with 6 across.   
      
      
   > Accepting a narrow seat on a plane for an hour or two _per year_ for the   
   > typical passenger is different from accepting the same seat on a train   
   > for an hour or two _per day_.   
      
   A lot of people must travel coach numerous times a year, and go longer   
   distances than merely an hour.   
      
   Also, people are physically bigger than they were in the past, such as when   
   the 737 was first developed.   
      
      
      
      
   > OTOH, they also usually don't have the massive overhead bins that you   
   > get on planes; without those, the headroom would be similar.   
      
   I don't recall a 737 having much headroom even in the aisle (the cabin height   
   wasn't given in Wikip).  But to save weight and space, an airliner's height   
   will be as low as possible.   
      
   Acela has bulky interior overhead bins, regretfully.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)