"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:21:11 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Henderson"
wrote:
less well informed (due to relative lack of public knowledge of
the ability to make many journeys by NR instead of/as well as by LU, or
vice
versa),

please provide evidence to support this assertion as I don't understand
what you are trying to say. Why the public don't understand things can
result from a whole range of factors that are completely outside the
scope of railway management(s).

I'm saying that a good number people have a limited or non-existent
awareness of suburban National Rail services in London, because the Tube map
is so widely believed to be the definitive guide.

and more expensive (due to missed economies of scale in management,
staffing and many other areas) than could be the case with one merged
network? What mitigating circumstances are there?

Please evidence your argument that LU being owned by the main line
railway would be more "efficient".

I can't "evidence" it as such, but as a general principle, needless
duplication of management, staffing structures, communications systems and
so on tends to be inefficient.

A metro system that is part of the National Rail network seems to work
perfectly well in Liverpool. Are there reasons why it wouldn't in London?

You call the Merseyrail system a Metro? Interesting.

Why, shouldn't I?

(Genuine questions from a puzzled non-expert.)

Out of curiosity why are you asking the questions? for research?

No. Because of my own curiosity. It occurred to me after using Merseyrail
for the first time recently, which I hadn't realised in advance was NR, a
pleasant surprise which made things simpler.

You're generally being distinctly aggressive with me considering I made it
perfectly clear that I'm *not* an expert and I'm asking genuine questions
out of pure curiosity.