It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.

But that argument doesn't really work if you put it the other way
round. Consider if TfL said they were willing to reduce the Victoria
and Piccadilly Line service frequencies by 20% if it meant everyone
currently changing at Finsbury Park could have a direct train.

Oh, that's impressive debating. Snip the part where I quoted what
I was responding to, and then claim that I haven't correctly responded
to something else.

What I was responding to *was*:

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

So the correct analogy would be: consider if TfL said that half of
the Victoria Line trains would now go to Cockfosters and half of the
Piccadilly trains would go to Walthamstow.

Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train
frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a
cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that
there isn't.
--
Mark Brader "Those who do not understand UNIX
Toronto are condemned to reinvent it."
-- Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.