I think it's because it works on the basis of how many tph a station
has to a certain station - it's no good knowing that Bexleyheath has
4tph if you specifically want to go to Victoria, as it's only the
terminus for two of those trains (IIRC).

That's another thing I'm not keen on about the new LUL frequent
services map actually - it reverts to showing any station that has that
many trains is receiving a frequent service, even when it's effectively
served by two infrequent routes.



I strongly agree with this- the main point of these maps is to take away the
mystery of train travel for those who are not regular users, and if I want
to go from central London to somewhere on the Bexleyheath line I need to
know that I actually have a choice of two lines, each of which only runs
every half an hour. These should be clearly coded as per the Rayners Lane to
Uxbridge service.

The concept of regular services along the same lines is the point of the
South London Metro as I understand it (sorry, the South London-metropolitan
Kent-metropolitan Surrey- bits of Middlesex and real Kent and Surrey Metro)
is to simplify services, so for example all Bexleyheath line trains off-peak
would run to Victoria with all Sidcup line trains to Charing Cross, so you
know where you stand but you may need to change at Lewisham. But I read very
recently that the SRA were keen to divert half the Sidcup trains to
Victoria.

Now I understand this to a point, but I thought the opposing argument (i.e.
metro frequencies to a single destination) had been accepted by TfL and the
operating companies.

Who will ultimately have the final say on this? I don't quite understand the
relationship of the interested parties since the demise of the SRA.