Mizter T wrote:

Of course if it were marketted as still being part of the tube, it would
boost usage and property prices. Is there anything really stopping it
from
being presented that way?

The North London Line is very busy these days, with a 15 min frequency
during the day and 20 mins in the evening. It's on a tube map, which is
good marketing.

That's not quite the same thing as "this location is close to a tube
station" though. Making the NLL a nominal part of the tube (orbital services
offer as much tunnel as many current Met services have) could be the missing
link. (Also it would help the traveller if the line map on a tube train said
something more useful than "interchange with national rail" for stations.)

The filthy state of the train interiors isn't a good
promotion for the service,

You think the NLL is a dire line to be on - come try the GOBLIN some time.

More substantially, what level of demand is there for journeys from
Clapham
to ELL destinations? I can't see a direct Clapham-Canada Water service
relieving pressure on the Jubilee Line at Waterloo and I'm not sure if
changing at Clapham gets one to Whitechapel faster than from Victoria.

Both good points, I don't know what the relative merits in terms of
journey times will be. But the ELL will have many audiences, and will
provide orbital rather than radial journey opportunities. It's not just
for the benefit of the SWT traveller!

True, but from the point of view of a tube link at Clapham (which prompted
my questions), those are the distinations that spring to mind.

And - an important point - if it does provide a good alternative to get
to Whitechapel for instance, even say if the journey times are similar,
then some passengers will choose that route as it'll be cheaper (no
travelling through pricey zone 1), which will ease the load on the
District.

How will Oyster always know if people are bypassing Zone 1 or not?