|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:07:19 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote: But the vast majority of SSL peak passengers are trying to get to the City, either from west-of-Earl's-Court or east-of-Whitechapel on the District, from northwest-of-Baker-Street on the Met, or from west-of- Paddington on the H&C(&C). The Circle is an irrelevance to them: Met/ H&C passengers can easily walk to all City destinations from the Met route, and District passengers to all City destinations from the District route. You forget the large number of people arriving at Euston and Kings Cross, quite a few of whom want to go to Tower Hill etc. Some of this could be solved by telling people that Aldgate to Tower Hill is less than 10 minutes' walk, though, as I don't think everyone from outside London realises that - even, IMX, people who do the journey every day. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:53:25 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote: I've missed a late train from Charing Cross when it was announced seconds before stopping that just one set of doors in the (Northern) carriage wouldn't open, and some people with suitcases, whom I was stuck behind, couldn't get through the crowd to the open door. Walking back from Embankment was just too late. I've had that issue, though I did make it off. But that was because I hadn't paid attention to whether I was in the last coach. But relating to that, why are the last set of doors switched out at Bank? They are on the platform (albeit only just). Or is it a flow thing? Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:19:01 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote: But it doesn't matter because everyone can walk everywhere. Train services and tube stations no longer need to be where people want to go to. They can be 10-15 mins away and everyone just walks. Yeah, right. But given the current service (a lack of Circle Line services, specifically) you get a far more comfortable and frequent journey if you use the Met to Aldgate instead of the Circle beyond. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 26 Dec, 00:06, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:53:25 -0800 (PST), MIG wrote: I've missed a late train from Charing Cross when it was announced seconds before stopping that just one set of doors in the (Northern) carriage wouldn't open, and some people with suitcases, whom I was stuck behind, couldn't get through the crowd to the open door. Walking back from Embankment was just too late. I've had that issue, though I did make it off. *But that was because I hadn't paid attention to whether I was in the last coach. But relating to that, why are the last set of doors switched out at Bank? *They are on the platform (albeit only just). *Or is it a flow thing? Neil Do you mean Moorgate? I'm not aware of it at Bank*. It also happens at Euston. I don't really understand it either. It would be better if the driver had the discretion if he/she knew he/she had missed the stop marker by enough. The doors don't normally seem to be in the tunnel at any of these places. *Although some peculiar behaviours have started at the north end with platform staff trying to direct the flow. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:25:15 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote: Do you mean Moorgate? I'm not aware of it at Bank*. Ah, maybe I'm getting confused. It must have been Euston going towards Bank rather than the other way round. But it seemed silly, as there was clearly enough room for the doors to be opened. Are they perhaps out of view of the DOO cameras? Or is dispatch from Euston purely manual? *Although some peculiar behaviours have started at the north end with platform staff trying to direct the flow. That just gets peoples' backs up - they should give up on it. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 25 Dec, 20:54, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: Because this is the result of idiot westerners somehow thinking that Essex means Romford, or Basildon if i'm lucky, and tarring me with their idiot brush. I hate to break it to you, but Basildon is still in Essex. And Romford is a place unto itself. London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 01:38:17 on Sun, 27 Dec 2009, fvw remarked: London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. Having once lived in Brentwood [1] for many years, it's fascinating the way Londoners regard it as "the first town outside London", whereas Essex people regard it as "the first suburb inside London". [1] And Shenfield is just the posh bit of Brentwood. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
Paul Corfield wrote:
Some of this could be solved by telling people that Aldgate to Tower Hill is less than 10 minutes' walk, though, as I don't think everyone from outside London realises that - even, IMX, people who do the journey every day. But it doesn't matter because everyone can walk everywhere. Train services and tube stations no longer need to be where people want to go to. They can be 10-15 mins away and everyone just walks. Yeah, right. So that's why the streets and stations around Covent Garden are awash with signs encouraging passengers to go on foot... |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message , at 10:19:01 on
Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Paul Corfield remarked: You forget the large number of people arriving at Euston and Kings Cross, quite a few of whom want to go to Tower Hill etc. Some of this could be solved by telling people that Aldgate to Tower Hill is less than 10 minutes' walk, though, as I don't think everyone from outside London realises that - even, IMX, people who do the journey every day. But it doesn't matter because everyone can walk everywhere. Train services and tube stations no longer need to be where people want to go to. They can be 10-15 mins away and everyone just walks. Yeah, right. Tube stations in London are already about twice as far apart as Metro stations in Paris. Meanwhile, I would almost never catch a London underground train just one stop[1] and think twice about catching one for two stops. [1] Except perhaps KX-Farringdon, and even then I'd probably use Thameslink. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 27, 7:23*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:19:01 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Paul Corfield remarked: You forget the large number of people arriving at Euston and Kings Cross, quite a few of whom want to go to Tower Hill etc. Some of this could be solved by telling people that Aldgate to Tower Hill is less than 10 minutes' walk, though, as I don't think everyone from outside London realises that - even, IMX, people who do the journey every day. But it doesn't matter because everyone can walk everywhere. Train services and tube stations no longer need to be where people want to go to. They can be 10-15 mins away and everyone just walks. Yeah, right. Tube stations in London are already about twice as far apart as Metro stations in Paris. Meanwhile, I would almost never catch a London underground train just one stop[1] and think twice about catching one for two stops. [1] Except perhaps KX-Farringdon, and even then I'd probably use Thameslink. Baker St - Finchley Road? Chalfont-Chesham? But yes, I agree re Zone 1. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 14:33:35 on Sun, 27 Dec 2009, John B remarked: Meanwhile, I would almost never catch a London underground train just one stop[1] and think twice about catching one for two stops. [1] Except perhaps KX-Farringdon, and even then I'd probably use Thameslink. Baker St - Finchley Road? Chalfont-Chesham? I've never done either of those (as 1-station hops), although I did once do West Hampstead to Westminster, when my MML train conked out at West Hampstead (Main Line). But yes, I agree re Zone 1. I had mainly zone 1 in mind, as you correctly deduce. But during a tube strike I once walked from Elephant and Castle (Thameslink) to Vauxhall [which is through Zone 2], and afterwards walked all the way back to Kings Cross [Zone 1]. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 27 Dec, 10:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:38:17 on Sun, 27 Dec 2009, fvw remarked: London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. Having once lived in Brentwood [1] for many years, it's fascinating the way Londoners regard it as "the first town outside London", whereas Essex people regard it as "the first suburb inside London". [1] And Shenfield is just the posh bit of Brentwood. -- Roland Perry The railway crosses the London border almost exactly where the M25 is, which happens to be between Harold Wood and Brentwood stations. Brentwood is thoroughly in Essex and Harold Wood is in London. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 26 Dec, 23:17, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:25:15 -0800 (PST), MIG wrote: Do you mean Moorgate? *I'm not aware of it at Bank*. Ah, maybe I'm getting confused. *It must have been Euston going towards Bank rather than the other way round. *But it seemed silly, as there was clearly enough room for the doors to be opened. Are they perhaps out of view of the DOO cameras? *Or is dispatch from Euston purely manual? There is a narrow section there. Hadn't really thought of that. Will check out Charing Cross* and Moorgate** to see if there could be equivalent situations. *Although some peculiar behaviours have started at the north end with platform staff trying to direct the flow. That just gets peoples' backs up - they should give up on it. It's weird, but it's a slight improvement on previous practice of shutting the doors just before last person steps off and before anyone has got on. I suspect they had lots of complaints about drivers doing that at Bank and decided to staff the platform. *There's a narrow extended bit at the front heading north as I remember, not sure if it's the same at the back heading south. **Moorgate has a strange alignment, as if the track was realigned after the station was built, so the track is curved and the wall isn't. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, MIG writes **Moorgate has a strange alignment, as if the track was realigned after the station was built, so the track is curved and the wall isn't. Moorgate (or Moorgate Street as it then was) was built as the temporary northern terminus of the City & South London Line in 1900, and originally had a scissors crossover (with signal box above) and a locomotive spur for emergency use. The track was realigned a little less than two years later when the extension to Angel opened. -- Paul Terry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 28 Dec, 10:19, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , MIG writes **Moorgate has a strange alignment, as if the track was realigned after the station was built, so the track is curved and the wall isn't. Moorgate (or Moorgate Street as it then was) was built as the temporary northern terminus of the City & South London Line in 1900, and originally had a scissors crossover (with signal box above) and a locomotive spur for emergency use. The track was realigned a little less than two years later when the extension to Angel opened. -- Paul Terry Ah, right. I feel as if I should have known that, but I didn't. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 01:29:25 on Mon, 28 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. Having once lived in Brentwood [1] for many years, it's fascinating the way Londoners regard it as "the first town outside London", whereas Essex people regard it as "the first suburb inside London". [1] And Shenfield is just the posh bit of Brentwood. The railway crosses the London border almost exactly where the M25 is, which happens to be between Harold Wood and Brentwood stations. Yes, that's where the administrative boundary is today. Brentwood is thoroughly in Essex and Harold Wood is in London. That's what Londoners would say (see above). Essex people either remember when Romford and Ilford were properly "Essex", or lump Brentwood in with Harold Wood as "the edge of suburban London". To the latter, the psychological boundary is the Chelmsford end of the Brentwood bypass, which is quite close to the junction between the Chelmsford and Southend branches of the railway. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 28 Dec, 20:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:29:25 on Mon, 28 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. Having once lived in Brentwood [1] for many years, it's fascinating the way Londoners regard it as "the first town outside London", whereas Essex people regard it as "the first suburb inside London". [1] And Shenfield is just the posh bit of Brentwood. The railway crosses the London border almost exactly where the M25 is, which happens to be between Harold Wood and Brentwood stations. Yes, that's where the administrative boundary is today. And what other kind of boundary has there ever been? |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 00:50:31 on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. Having once lived in Brentwood [1] for many years, it's fascinating the way Londoners regard it as "the first town outside London", whereas Essex people regard it as "the first suburb inside London". [1] And Shenfield is just the posh bit of Brentwood. The railway crosses the London border almost exactly where the M25 is, which happens to be between Harold Wood and Brentwood stations. Yes, that's where the administrative boundary is today. And what other kind of boundary has there ever been? The administrative boundary in the past. The furthest that London Buses used to travel. Where the suburban railway today (and Crosslink in future) has a terminus. Where it "feels like" the edge of London is, and those feelings do depend on whether you are looking outwards or inwards. For further information about the various complexities, I recommend you review the debate when this newsgroup was formed, regarding the definition of "London" to be adopted. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 29 Dec, 09:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:50:31 on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: London stops, and Essex, starts at the end of the Shenfield metro. Having once lived in Brentwood [1] for many years, it's fascinating the way Londoners regard it as "the first town outside London", whereas Essex people regard it as "the first suburb inside London". [1] And Shenfield is just the posh bit of Brentwood. The railway crosses the London border almost exactly where the M25 is, which happens to be between Harold Wood and Brentwood stations. Yes, that's where the administrative boundary is today. And what other kind of boundary has there ever been? The administrative boundary in the past. The furthest that London Buses used to travel. Where the suburban railway today (and Crosslink in future) has a terminus. Where it "feels like" the edge of London is, and those feelings do depend on whether you are looking outwards or inwards. For further information about the various complexities, I recommend you review the debate when this newsgroup was formed, regarding the definition of "London" to be adopted. -- Roland Perry Yes, I appreciate all these things. It's just that any county is an administrative concept and its borders are administrative and can't be anything else. For a moment I thought you were falling into the nonsensical "it's really in Cheshire but administratively in Greater Manchester" sort of comment. I can accept the "feels like" and the boundaries used by different utilities and transport systems, but I can't be doing with the idea that current administrative boundaries are administrative, while previous administrative boundaries are real. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 07:16:43 on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: any county is an administrative concept and its borders are administrative and can't be anything else. No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes. For a moment I thought you were falling into the nonsensical "it's really in Cheshire but administratively in Greater Manchester" sort of comment. Nottingham City is still in(side) Nottinghamshire, despite being a unitary authority. I can accept the "feels like" and the boundaries used by different utilities and transport systems, but I can't be doing with the idea that current administrative boundaries are administrative, while previous administrative boundaries are real. It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old geographic boundaries. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 29, 9:49*pm, wrote:
any county is an administrative concept and its borders are administrative and can't be anything else. No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes. And there can be other meaningful definitions. For a moment I thought you were falling into the nonsensical "it's really in Cheshire but administratively in Greater Manchester" sort of comment. Nottingham City is still in(side) Nottinghamshire, despite being a unitary authority. Which is why there is another level of administrative boundaries, lieutenancies, in which unitary are incorporated into wider counties. The main exception is Stockton which is divided along the Tees between Yorkshire and Durham lieutenancies. I can accept the "feels like" and the boundaries used by different utilities and transport systems, but I can't be doing with the idea that current administrative boundaries are administrative, while previous administrative boundaries are real. It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old geographic boundaries. Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century. Indeed. Roland's statement is complete nonsense unless you count 1888 as "fairly recent", which it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1888 -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 01:34:41 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, John B remarked: It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old geographic boundaries. Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century. Indeed. Roland's statement is complete nonsense unless you count 1888 as "fairly recent", which it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1888 Of course it's "fairly recent". Most of the historic county boundaries have been mapped, and entered popular consciousness, since at least the 1600's -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 30, 11:51*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:34:41 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, John B remarked: It's only fairly recently that the administrative boundaries have been tinkered with so that they don't line up with centuries-old geographic boundaries. Oh no it isn't! Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century. Indeed. Roland's statement is complete nonsense unless you count 1888 as "fairly recent", which it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1888 Of course it's "fairly recent". Most of the historic county boundaries have been mapped, and entered popular consciousness, since at least the 1600's You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent? People in Oxford who insist they're native Berkshire-ites? Isle of Wight natives who insist they live in Hampshire...? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
John B wrote:
Of course it's "fairly recent". Most of the historic county boundaries have been mapped, and entered popular consciousness, since at least the 1600's You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent? People in Oxford who insist they're native Berkshire-ites? Isle of Wight natives who insist they live in Hampshire...? And where is Essex in Forest Gate?! |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 04:01:49 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, John B remarked: You reckon there are Sussex folk in Tunbridge Wells who're still disgruntled about being forcibly assimilated into Kent? People in Oxford who insist they're native Berkshire-ites? Isle of Wight natives who insist they live in Hampshire...? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find there were people who regard themselves as living in Oxfordshire, despite being on the northern edge of Reading and having been assimilated into administrative Berkshire (and now unitary Reading). -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
Reverting to the original debate between Roland and MIG about
Essex/Greater London, I agree it depends on your interpretation of boundary and side with Roland. Unlike MIG I do not take any notice of artificial local govt. boundaries - a place is defined by its postal area.Until fairly recently I lived in Harold Wood (the last station within the GLA area) Romford Essex (Postal Code RM12, not London E or heaven forbid Havering) which makes it Essex to me.Indeed most residents would certainly not consider they lived in London. John |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
John wrote on 30 December 2009 18:01:20 ...
Reverting to the original debate between Roland and MIG about Essex/Greater London, I agree it depends on your interpretation of boundary and side with Roland. Unlike MIG I do not take any notice of artificial local govt. boundaries - a place is defined by its postal area.Until fairly recently I lived in Harold Wood (the last station within the GLA area) Romford Essex (Postal Code RM12, not London E or heaven forbid Havering) which makes it Essex to me. That's because you've added 'Essex' to the address. It's not part of the postal address. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
John wrote:
Unlike MIG I do not take any notice of artificial local govt. boundaries - a place is defined by its postal area. That is even more artificial! I have relatives who live in south Cumbria, regardless of the fact their postal address has a Lancashire town on it. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message , John
writes Unlike MIG I do not take any notice of artificial local govt. boundaries - a place is defined by its postal area. Really? Near to where I live is a road where the houses on the east side have a SW London postcode, while those opposite start with a Twickenham postcode and then revert to SW London, all within the space of 50 yards. I suspect that the residents would probably define themselves as living in Richmond, since that is far closer than Twickenham! Postal areas (and more recently postcodes) were designed purely to facilitate mail delivery, and are based on the positions of sorting offices and the practicalities of postmen's rounds - nothing more. -- Paul Terry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 30 Dec, 18:50, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , John writes Unlike MIG I do not take any notice of artificial local govt. boundaries - a place is defined by its postal area. Really? Near to where I live is a road where the houses on the east side have a SW London postcode, while those opposite start with a Twickenham postcode and then revert to SW London, all within the space of 50 yards. I suspect that the residents would probably define themselves as living in Richmond, since that is far closer than Twickenham! Postal areas (and more recently postcodes) were designed purely to facilitate mail delivery, and are based on the positions of sorting offices and the practicalities of postmen's rounds - nothing more. And in any case, counties don't exist at all in postal addresses any more. It would be a bizarre basis. The boundary of a particular authority to whom one pays taxes to provide services seems like a sensible one to me. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 29 Dec, 21:35, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:16:43 on Tue, 29 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: any county is an administrative concept and its borders are administrative and can't be anything else. No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes. What is a geographic boundary of a county, unless the county is an island or something? Even if a geographic feature, such as a river, is chosen as the boundary, it's still an administrative boundary. The concept of the county doesn't come frome the river. The concept of administration requires boundaries and the river may be chosen. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
Let's just agree to differ. Whatever it was when I left school (1965) will
be my take on it until the day I die. You think differently - I accept that. John |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 07:06:15 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, remarked: Royston used to straddle the border of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The border was redrawn round it in the nineteenth century. That counts as "fairly recent" (in my centuries-old timeline)! (Last time we discussed this, did we come up with a date for this boundary change?) The establishment of county councils in 1889 probably. A lot of county boundary anomalies were sorted out then. As Wikipaedia puts it: "The boundaries of the counties were to be those used for parliamentary purposes, adjusted to include urban sanitary districts on county borders within a single county." The same article mentions Newmarket as an urban sanitary district which lay in more than one county and which was given to Suffolk (because it contained largest part of the district's population at the 1881 census). It doesn't mention Royston however. I suspect it hadn't developed enough to be an urban sanitary district before then. It seems that the former Royston USD may have been too big to fully incorporate in either one county or the other, and half of it ended up as the Melbourn District, within Cambridgshire. The other half may have been lumped into Ashwell for a few years, before gaining 'independence'. More likely they were rural sanitary districts. A number of rural districts straddling county boundaries were divided between them. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message , at 14:57:01
on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, remarked: As Wikipaedia puts it: "The boundaries of the counties were to be those used for parliamentary purposes, adjusted to include urban sanitary districts on county borders within a single county." The same article mentions Newmarket as an urban sanitary district which lay in more than one county and which was given to Suffolk (because it contained largest part of the district's population at the 1881 census). It doesn't mention Royston however. I suspect it hadn't developed enough to be an urban sanitary district before then. It seems that the former Royston USD may have been too big to fully incorporate in either one county or the other, and half of it ended up as the Melbourn District, within Cambridgshire. The other half may have been lumped into Ashwell for a few years, before gaining 'independence'. More likely they were rural sanitary districts. A number of rural districts straddling county boundaries were divided between them. Wikipedia again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourn_Rural_District Although that begs the question of why the boundary was moved, because that's orthogonal to splitting an existing RSD into two parts. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message
, at 11:38:43 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: any county is an administrative concept and its borders are administrative and can't be anything else. No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes. What is a geographic boundary of a county, unless the county is an island or something? Even if a geographic feature, such as a river, is chosen as the boundary, it's still an administrative boundary. The concept of the county doesn't come frome the river. The concept of administration requires boundaries and the river may be chosen. If you take the earlier example of Reading; historically north of the river was Oxon and south of the river was Berks. More recently (fsvo) it was decided to transfer a chunk of the town north of the river administratively into Berks, but geographically and psychologically it's still north of the river. -- Roland Perry |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 30 Dec, 21:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:38:43 on Wed, 30 Dec 2009, MIG remarked: any county is an administrative concept and its borders are administrative and can't be anything else. No, they can be geographic, ignoring recent administrative changes. What is a geographic boundary of a county, unless the county is an island or something? Even if a geographic feature, such as a river, is chosen as the boundary, it's still an administrative boundary. *The concept of the county doesn't come frome the river. *The concept of administration requires boundaries and the river may be chosen. If you take the earlier example of Reading; historically north of the river was Oxon and south of the river was Berks. More recently (fsvo) it was decided to transfer a chunk of the town north of the river administratively into Berks, but geographically and psychologically it's still north of the river. Geographically north of the river indeed. Rivers are geographical. I have no problem with that. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk