Net Zero then - the insignificant benefit it would afford the minute number of people who have never existed in my 20+ years of using the line, 5 years working for the railway, 2 of which as a CIS controller, but miraculously appeared halfway through this thread to make the OPs argument for them - would be outweighed by the inconvenience caused to people who would now think if they just missed the fast to London at xx01 from Oxford the xx07 would take them to London instead. It would eventually, but it still isn’t the train you want.
Wait what? If you're going to call me a liar at least come out and say it directly. The conversation will be over but at least it won't be mired in passive aggression.
Also, not to downplay your railway experience which I respect, but 5 years of working for the railway is hardly long enough to pull this
I've never seen this in my whole career you must be lying! kind of line.
And how would your people be inconvenienced by my compromise proposal, which is
maintaining the use of false destinations, but adding an explanatory poster or board at the stations that use them? Since the major stations which use them all have 'next fastest direct train' boards, how could they be confused in the manner you suggest? The stopper would still be listed as Ealing Broardway.
The issues it would cause far outweigh the benefits, net benefit - zero.
It's a dishonest sleight of hand to switch to *net* benefits. All I'm saying is that there may be some benefit to someone; I'm not denying that the benefits could be outweighed, though I've yet to see a convincing case. Maybe information overload is it.
But in your own terms, you are not describing a zero net benefit. You're describing a net cost, or a negative net benefit.