Standing long distances dissuades passengers from travelling, so this demand is just as invisible. Capacity should not include standing on long distance trains. Aside from compulsory reservation, there has not been one other practical suggestion as to how to eliminate this. Just train enthusiasts arguing for the status quo.
It's not really invisible; the evidence is the number of passengers who *do* stand, who will at least give some idea of the minimum seat deficit. Ideally capacity should be sufficent to not include standing *for long distances* on long distance services, but there's not a big problem with standing for *short* distances on long distance services (e.g. Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street).
The three basic answers to standing being put forward are:
- To increase seating capacity by whatever means (longer trains, more trains, HS2 etc.) (an entirely *practical* solution which is basically what is being done, only too slowly).
- To put up with the situation as it is
- To cut overall peak capacity drastically and prevent people travelling (via compulsory reservations and a standing ban) and force traffic onto the roads instead, slowing down road travel and making it more polluting and losing customers from the railway.
I find it difficult to see how anyone can advocate *just* the last option wihtout option 1; and if you combine option 1 and 3, then 3 becomes redundant - if there is enough seating capacity why force people to reserve?
I'm afraid I just cannot accept the arguement that the solution to a lack of seating capacity is to reduce total peak capacity, seated and standing, by maybe 30% or more. I would imagine there would be disorder at the London terminals on the first day of introduction, and they wouldn't be 'train enthusiasts' rioting.