I don’t really agree with this often-expressed point of view. If anyone is seriously suggesting that all of the general public bar railway enthusiasts are not going to notice the difference between a well-designed, civilised train with space for luggage, air conditioning and comfortable seating, and a smaller, older, non-air conditioned unit with a cramped suburban layout then I think they ought to credit people with a little more intelligence. If I get a train from Manchester to South Wales and it turns out to be a 150 then I am not going to have a particularly enjoyable journey but it won’t put me off travelling on that line again because I know that next time it is likely to be a more suitable unit. If somebody who doesn’t use trains very much ends up travelling for 3+ hours on what they see as a smelly, draughty, hot, noisy and cramped train, they are probably going to drive next time rather than repeat the experience as they will not know that it is (comparatively) unusual. I absolutely believe that train operators are to be commended for using inferior stock rather than cancel the service but if, say, the guard were to apologise for the different type of rolling stock and explain the reasons behind it, it might be looked upon in a more favourable light by travellers at large.