On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, David of Broadway wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Thus, my point that the frequency at the suburban stations is too low
to be useful as a tube line stands, and moreover, Jon Morris's point,
which you've helpfully snipped, that "the service frequency from King's
Cross to Blackfriars makes it almost as good as any other tube line" is
also shown to be an outrageous lie - 8 tph is barely a turn-up-and-go
frequency, and not what i call tube frequency. Perhaps if you've been
unlucky enough to grow up out in the western branches of the Magical
District Line Tree, you might think so, but as someone who lives at
Finsbury Park, i don't.

Just as a point of comparison - several NYC subway routes run less
frequently than 8 tph during rush hours. And midday timetables on many
(most?) routes call for 6 tph.

To be fair, what's considered a single route in NYC might in many cases
be considered one branch of a line in London.

Quite so. The New Yorkist idea of a 'line' is different to ours, in that
it's wrong.

But presumably, that does mean that out in the suburbs, where the
lines/branches go their separate ways, the frequency really is down to 6-8
tph. There are places where that's the case in London (or even less -
there are some places with sub-4 tph off-peak service) too, although it's
rare, and they really are at the fringes of the network. Jon's example of
Oakwood is unfortunately one.

tom

--
We must perform a quirkafleeg