"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...
I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station
has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has
4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the
terminus for two of those trains (IIRC).

That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent
services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that
many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively
served by two infrequent routes.

I strongly agree with this- the main point of these maps is to take away
the
mystery of train travel for those who are not regular users, and if I want
to go from central London to somewhere on the Bexleyheath line I need to
know that I actually have a choice of two lines, each of which only runs
every half an hour. These should be clearly coded as per the Rayners Lane
to
Uxbridge service.

Yes, agreed that map needs more detail to be of any real use.

The concept of regular services along the same lines is the point of the
South London Metro as I understand it (sorry, the South
London-metropolitan
Kent-metropolitan Surrey- bits of Middlesex and real Kent and Surrey
Metro)
is to simplify services, so for example all Bexleyheath line trains
off-peak
would run to Victoria with all Sidcup line trains to Charing Cross, so you
know where you stand but you may need to change at Lewisham. But I read
very
recently that the SRA were keen to divert half the Sidcup trains to
Victoria.

The original IKF specification had off-peak trains on the Bexleyheath trains
(4tph) going to Cannon Street, with another 2tph going to Victoria (if I
remember right). In modifying their plans, the SRA moved the Victoria
trains to run to and from Sidcup only and gave the Bexleyheath line 2tph
Charing X and 2tph Cannon St.

Now I understand this to a point, but I thought the opposing argument
(i.e.
metro frequencies to a single destination) had been accepted by TfL and
the
operating companies.

Maybe, but it appears that the SRA consultation revealed the local users of
these stations strongly opposed such plans.

As one of the London-based transport bodies said at the time (LTUC?), TfL's
desire with single destinations for a particular line was being given too
much priority. Most people want to go to Charing Cross, not Cannon St or
Victoria. Clearly presented timetables, signs and announcements are what
are needed to avoid confusion, not the inconvenience of making many people
change trains to make the timetable "simple".

Who will ultimately have the final say on this? I don't quite understand
the
relationship of the interested parties since the demise of the SRA.

Well, I hope the current situation of multiple destinations from the
stations around here remains.

It's a shame TfL haven't carried out a similar consultation around here
before they adopted their "high frequency, single destination" stance. I
remain totally convinced that this is something of a distration; 4tph
(reasonably spaced across the hour) is perfectly adequate for off-peak
sevices to stations around here. What we need are simple ticketing
arrangement (well, we have a Travelcard, that does nicely), clear timetables
and station displays (much more could be done on this), a much improved
station environment to encourage users in the first place, and lastly much
better maintenance and cleaing of the trains themselves.

The Networkers that many of us travel to work on are in a pretty grim state,
with fairly high levels of vandalism. This must be a big deterant to rail
travel. Recently, we've seen the introduction of the "tube style" 376
trains that are quite shockingly uncomfortable for any signicant journey (45
mins from Dartford to Charing X is not pleasant).