John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.


If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation specified for a given
name how can it be "wrong"?

(Blame Dr Johnson, it's all his fault!!)

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake. The station does
not have two different names, and would not even if the eponymous park did.

Incidentally, does one of the Ruislip Central lIne stations still have
roundels which use completely the wrong font?


Do you mean Rayners lane with old roundels?

Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't make their
version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

In message , John Rowland
writes
"umpston" wrote in message
om...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake. The station does
not have two different names, and would not even if the eponymous park did.

It's an interesting English eccentricity and is as it should be....
--
Kat "bears" said the taxi driver "is sixpence extra,
sticky bears is ninepence"

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Incidentally, does one of the Ruislip Central lIne stations
still have roundels which use completely the wrong font?

Do you mean Rayners lane with old roundels?

No.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Cast_Iron wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

Yeah, a guy who doesn't know when to put an apostrophe in "it's"; another
who goes on about the Queen's English but doesn't know how the Queen spells
the Court of St. James's; an expert on buses who also makes the same
mistake; and two others (including you) who are fooled into thinking this
is a matter for debate.

I refer you to the spelling adopted by The Royal Parks, Ordnance Survey,
other map producers such as Bartholomew, Transport for London, City of
Westminster, Fowler's Modern English Usage, and in respect of St. James's
Palace (after which the park was named) the royal web-site
www.royal.gov.uk. Can you provide *any* evidence, apart from the rogue
station sign, that any other spelling is generally accepted?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
Cast_Iron wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be
acceptable.

The fact that a few misguided individuals think so doesn't
make their version "generally acceptable".

No, they should not be commended, because it is a
mistake.
The station does not have two different names, and would
not even if the eponymous park did.

If there is no one "correct" spelling or punctuation
specified for a given name how can it be "wrong"?

But there *is* one correct spelling, "St. James's Park".

Quite obviously a number of people disagree with you.

Yeah, a guy who doesn't know when to put an apostrophe in
"it's"; another who goes on about the Queen's English but
doesn't know how the Queen spells the Court of St. James's;
an expert on buses who also makes the same mistake; and two
others (including you) who are fooled into thinking this is
a matter for debate.

I refer you to the spelling adopted by The Royal Parks,
Ordnance Survey, other map producers such as Bartholomew,
Transport for London, City of Westminster, Fowler's Modern
English Usage, and in respect of St. James's Palace (after
which the park was named) the royal web-site
www.royal.gov.uk. Can you provide *any* evidence, apart
from the rogue station sign, that any other spelling is
generally accepted?

You obviously feel strongly about it, I couldn't really give a toss how
anything is spelt or punctuated as long as the meaning is clear.

Richard J. wrote:

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot
under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than
Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an
amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why.

Because the real thing was hard to get hold of?

I've heard of one such font called SubwayLondon. Could it be that?

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the
dot under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are
narrower than Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different
proportions. Looks like an amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I
wonder why.

Because the real thing was hard to get hold of?

Surely not at LU's HQ station?

I've heard of one such font called SubwayLondon. Could it be that?

I haven't managed to find a full character set of SubwayLondon. The name
suggests it's an unofficial American clone of Johnston.

I think it's more likely that the sign was put up in the 1970's when LU
were starting to redesign Johnston. It might contain some experimental
variations that were not adopted for New Johnston.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)