The type of seating should relate to the length of journey (in journey time not mileage) and whether the service provides the most suitable way of getting from A to B.
So now time is the deciding factor is it? Odd that distance isn't when it doesn't suit your point.
Your view is that a short journey (in mileage terms) like yours between Liverpool and Birmingham should have the best stock, even though fewer people use that service than between London and Birmingham. Also the TOC does not have the kind of direct competition between Liverpool & Birmingham as it does between Birmingham and London.
Just so I am clear: Are you actually saying that LM should offer, on their most popular, most high profile, busiest and no doubt most profitable route a less good service?
BTW it is hardly as if the 350/2s never turn up on such services. They are in an alomst common user pool and can turn up everywhere. I often have one on a MKC - Crewe service on a Saturday morning. It is a pain. Given my own way I would dump all the 350/2's on secondary routes like Liverpool - Birmingham/ Northampton - Euston and keep the 350/1 & 350/3 for the Euston to Crewe and Birmingham trains. That would mean my trains every day would be 350/2's.
In the case of LM's Liverpool to Birmingham service it is the most suitable way of getting from Liverpool to Birmingham, while half of the services serve stations between Runcorn and Crewe which the Liverpool to London services do not, the other half do not. The service connects the second largest city in the North West region with the second largest city in the UK and it is advertised as having First Class accommodation (which is something only regional and Intercity services usually have in the North West.) No-one using the service for the first time would expect to find it having 3+2 seating without even having fold down tables. Like 6Gman said passengers aren't satisfied with the quality of the interiors - some have even been known to ask if they have boarded a 'family carriage' on seeing the 'child sized' seats. :roll:
Who are you to decide what is the most suitable way for a passenger to travel between two stations? People exercise their choice to travel and the style in which they travel for all manner of reasons of which price is but one.
Odd that a link between two provincial cities is worthy of a decent train yet a link between the capital and the second city isn't. Odd that people using the 350/2 elsewhere on the LM network seem able to cope without having to ask if they are on a "family carriage" with "child size" seats. Odd that they seem perfectly acceptable on a crush loaded service south of Rugby, where having a seat is a luxury at times yet unacceptable on a modestly loaded train elsewhere. Could straws be being clutched?
Like I've said all along LM's Liverpool to Birmingham service is the service you would usually use to get between Liverpool and Birmingham. LM's Birmingham to Euston service is the service you would use the get between Birmingham and London in order to travel for a bargain price. If you're looking for the cheapest single fare on LM services:
Liverpool to Birmingham - £9.50
London to Birmingham - £6.00
While if the Advances are sold out the cheapest single fares are:
Liverpool to Birmingham - £29.00
London to Birmingham - £25.00
As you've kept saying London to Birmingham is longer, so that only strengthens the case for arguing LM's London to Birmingham is a cheap economy service meaning high quality rolling stock is less important than it is for Liverpool to Birmingham.
Do you really want to put people off travelling by rail between Liverpool and Birmingham, just so the Moneysavers travelling between Birmingham and London can have 2+2 seating and tables for their dirt cheap £6 tickets?
You seem quite happy to inhibit the choice of travel between the two biggest cities in the UK simply to offer your service a better train. Is that a serious point?
Your view seems to be that those who can not afford the price offered by Virgin should not travel. Is that a serious argument?
Are you saying that the demand for services between Liverpool and Birmingham is suppressed and that LM could reap major benefits by providing a better train to service this latent demand?
Are you saying this potential demand outweighs that of Birmingham to London?
Odd that price, rather than distance, suddenly comes into the equation to prove your point. Sadly, that seems to miss the reality of life: That LM want & need to win traffic on the route between Birmingham and London and have a chance to do so.
On the Liverpool - Birmingham route LM, by your own admission, do not NEED to win passengers. You have no choice in the matter and are captive to their services. Why bother putting on a decent train when you don't need to try?
Finally, I assume you are a regular user of the Birmingham to Liverpool trains. Why not just say you don't like the 3+2 seating layout? I agree. I don't like them either even though I have said several times they are ok on the services I use every day.
That seems to be your whole argument in any event. My argument is that the "best" train should be assigned to the "best routes": In my mind the 350/2 should work the secondary routes, including yours and mine, leaving the 350/1 and 350/3 to the primary routes.
That said I should like to see a day when the level and quality of stock provision meets all our needs. I agree that suburban seating is less than good on long distance services but until there is funding to procure more trains we must make the best of what we have (or walk!) while the TOC must use their stock to
their maximum advantage.
). It's one of the few routes on which I've heard passengers complain to on-train staff about the quality of the rolling stock. And the complaint was that 3+2 seating was unsuitable for the train linking two major provincial cities.
