Actually that was the SRA, and Virgin still serve Lichfield (although connections with CT were not held when we tried - and failed - to do this).evil_hippo said:A bit ironic naming a 390 after Lichfield when Virgin have in the same breath robbed Lichfield of its Trent Valley locals.
Ironically it is the SRA's intention that it helps the taxpayer. As in theory Virgin were going to pay Premium payments (remember thoat? ) while the Central service needed a subsidy.evil_hippo said:It was the SRA, but let's face it, whose interest were at heart? It certainly wasn't the taxpayer, as those services were used and didn't cost a great deal. It was so virgin could tell everyone "we're this quick from Glasgow to London, 2 minutes quicker than before".
There was until it was replaced by a bussteve158 said:there's no demand at those two stops and there is a decent bus service between the two, nuneaton and coventry.
I disagree, the expensive upgrade to get the VWC trains up to 125mph can only be fully utilised if the trains really are limited-stop, and that means no calls between Milton Keynes and Crewe (except for the occasional one at Stafford, Tamworth Nuneaton Rugby), but that should only be done with a regular, hourly , stopping service provided by the new Desiros as proposed. Such a service would be much more useful than the present sporadic calling pattern, it would make a journey such as Lichfield to Tamworth possible ANY time of the day. All those places would get an hourly service to London.steve158 said:what the line needs really is more VWC stops at lichfield and rugeley trent valley.
Neither, it's a rail replacement bus, so rail fares apply. I suppose it's all down to whether you want to pay your £2.60 (cheap day single) to ride on a bus (or more likely a LDV/Transit type minibus) or a 150.Harry Potter said:Which one is cheaper though?