Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, 1577+2260 wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:22:00 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

That's one way of looking at it. My approach to a map like this would
to be try to erase superfluous distinctions; since i don't think the
difference between NR and LU lines is important per se (i think the
difference in service level is, but not the operator!), i wouldn't
try to display it.


I think the difference in service pattern is important, and so there
should be some distinction.


Absolutely - but the map should reflect the service pattern, not the
operator, so high-frequency mainlines should look similar to normal tube
lines, and low-frequency tubes should look similar to normal mainlines,
rather than having all mainlines look similar and all tube lines look
similar.
(snip)

I disagree, for the moment; Tube and NR should be indicated separately
for now, mainly because of ticketing issues. I know you can use
Travelcards anywhere, but through tickets between LU and NR are a bit of
a pain at the moment, particularly for Oyster users.

Even if fares were integrated, there is then the issue that
low-frequency Tube routes are often equivalent to what would be
considered high frequency on NR. The only sections of NR that approach
Tube standards of high frequency are sections like Clapham Junction -
Victoria / Waterloo. 6tph is an average frequency on outer Tube routes,
but it could be considered quite high frequency for some NR routes (e.g.
trains via Forest Hill).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London