On 09/05/2011 12:42, Martin L wrote:
To a certain extent, I think that the usual convention may have been
that it depended on whether the station was actually named after a
place (for example, there are actually areas shown on the Ordnance
Survey map, not just stations, called North Acton, South Acton, East
Acton and West Acton), or whether the 'north' or 'central' or whatever
was simply added by the railway company to distinguish it from other
stations. Hence Finchley Central, because there isn't such a place as
Central Finchley, it's just the central station for Finchley; as
opposed to East Finchley, which is called that because there is
actually a place called East Finchley.

That makes a lot of sense... one wouldn't expect stations called Ham
East and Ham West, for instance!

...but it was usually down to the original railway company to do the
naming, hence the variations.

I'm sure there's at least an element of that.

On the other hand, stations have had their names changed over the years
(e.g. as a result of the grouping or nationalisation). So for instance,
in 1950 Lincoln [GN] became Lincoln Central and Lincoln [Midland] became
Lincoln St Marks. And some stations have changed their names completely
(e.g. in Birmingham, Vauxhall to Duddeston, and in the East Midlands,
Sawley Junction to Long Eaton). There are lots of other examples from
all over the UK rail network.

And if you look at Colonel Cobb's railway atlas of the UK, some places
had two stations not distinguished by different names, but after
nationalisation had suffixes attached (e.g. Ingrow East and Ingrow West
in West Yorkshire).
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

In uk.railway Jeremy Double wrote:
And if you look at Colonel Cobb's railway atlas of the UK, some places
had two stations not distinguished by different names, but after
nationalisation had suffixes attached (e.g. Ingrow East and Ingrow West
in West Yorkshire).

There's also those where the stations are named after the railway company,
not the geographical location. See Hertford North, which is exactly due
west of Hertford East. Or Wigan North Western, in southern Wigan. Named
after the GNR, GER and LNWR respectively.

Theo

On Mon, 9 May 2011 13:32:18 +0100, Jeremy Double wrote
On 09/05/2011 12:42, Martin L wrote:
To a certain extent, I think that the usual convention may have been
that it depended on whether the station was actually named after a
place (for example, there are actually areas shown on the Ordnance
Survey map, not just stations, called North Acton, South Acton, East
Acton and West Acton), or whether the 'north' or 'central' or whatever
was simply added by the railway company to distinguish it from other
stations. Hence Finchley Central, because there isn't such a place as
Central Finchley, it's just the central station for Finchley; as
opposed to East Finchley, which is called that because there is
actually a place called East Finchley.

That makes a lot of sense... one wouldn't expect stations called Ham
East and Ham West, for instance!

You would if they were in Ham near Richmond-On-Thames :-)

On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:32:18 +0100, Jeremy Double
wrote:
That makes a lot of sense... one wouldn't expect stations called
Ham
East and Ham West, for instance!

Though Milton Keynes Central is in the district called Central Milton
Keynes.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Neil Williams wrote:

On Mon, 09 May 2011 13:32:18 +0100, Jeremy Double
wrote:
That makes a lot of sense... one wouldn't expect stations called
Ham
East and Ham West, for instance!

Though Milton Keynes Central is in the district called Central Milton
Keynes.


Milton Keynes Central does serve Central Milton Keynes but it is right
on the edge of that area, most people arriving at MKC needing a bus or
taxi ride to get to their destination.

Milton Keynes was never intended to be a dormitory for London. So
there was originally no plan to build a 'Milton Keynes Central'
because it was thought that Bletchley and Wolverton, which were going
to be renamed Milton Keynes South and North respectively, would more
than adequately serve the limited traffic to and from the conurbation.
The MK Development Corporation changed its mind when it became
apparent that selling houses to people already working in London would
be a whole lot easier than selling them to people who would also need
to find a job in Milton Keynes. However, BR was reluctant to invest
in a third station in a town that was already more than adequately
served by Bletchley and Wolverton.

Eventually, after a lot of public wrangling, a deal was done for BR
to build a low cost station on the edge of Central Milton Keynes.

On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 08:18:45AM +0100, Peter Masson wrote:
"1506" wrote
Why do our friends accross the Irish sea reverse the word
order (e.g. County Carlow) I wonder?
Not specifically Irish, but used where the county and a town in it have the
same name, and the shire suffix doesn't apply. The one English example is
County Durham.

So why County Durham instead of Durhamshire? And why have our
trans-Atlantic friends reversed the order to produce Whatever County
instead of County Whatever?

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life
-- Samuel Johnson

In message , at 12:51:17
on Tue, 10 May 2011, David Cantrell remarked:

And why have our trans-Atlantic friends reversed the order to produce
Whatever County instead of County Whatever?

You don't think they are following the more common pattern of
Whatever-Shire?
--
Roland Perry

On May 9, 6:23*am, 1506 wrote:
Technically accurate, thought provoking, and appeals to one who mildly
Aspergers. *Why do our friends accross the Irish sea reverse the word
order (e.g. County Carlow) I wonder?

What do you mean, "reverse the word order"? The point is that
"Hertford County" is completely unidiomatic even in British usage,
precisely because the word order is wrong.

Usages would be

Hertfordshire
County of Hertford (obsolete pre-1974 legal usage)
County of Hertfordshire (modern legal usage)

All that the Irish do is drop the "of", like we do with Durham. (And
even then, "County of Durham" can be found in acts of Parliament)

Even "Hertfordshire County" is more idiomatic than "Hertford County",
which has never been proper usage in Britain in either of our
lifetimes.

--
Abi

wrote:

On May 9, 6:23*am, 1506 wrote:
Technically accurate, thought provoking, and appeals to one who mildly
Aspergers. *Why do our friends accross the Irish sea reverse the word
order (e.g. County Carlow) I wonder?

What do you mean, "reverse the word order"? The point is that
"Hertford County" is completely unidiomatic even in British usage,

unless you're a footy fan in Stockport or Nottingham

--
..sig down for maintenance

On May 9, 6:23*am, 1506 wrote:
[...] Why do our friends across the Irish sea reverse
the word order (e.g. County Carlow) I wonder?

" wrote in
:

What do you mean, "reverse the word order"? The point is that
"Hertford County" is completely unidiomatic even in British usage,
precisely because the word order is wrong. [...]

We do 'reverse the word order' though for rivers: River Thames or River
Severn - but Americans have the Hudson River and the Colorado River. Then
there are Lake Superior and Mount Everest - so there's definitely a
precedent for '[feature] [name]' in geographical names.

Peter

--
|| Peter CS | Epsom | UK ||