On 04/06/2012 09:35, Jim wrote:
In ,
says...

I never liked the name. It does not really give one an idea of where it is.
A reasonable name might have been LUDGATE.

It couldn't really have been LUDGATE because one entrance is at Holborn
Viaduct.

I much preferred the original name of ST PAUL'S THAMESLINK but
presumably this was changed to avoid confusion with St Pauls underground
station.

Why not Ludgate Thameslink, then?

wrote in message
...
On 04/06/2012 09:35, Jim wrote:

It couldn't really have been LUDGATE because one entrance is at Holborn
Viaduct.

I much preferred the original name of ST PAUL'S THAMESLINK but
presumably this was changed to avoid confusion with St Pauls underground
station.

Why not Ludgate Thameslink, then?

However the idea of naming a double ended station for only one of its ends
seems to be considered OK for Crossrail, although we don't know yet what
they'll actually display at their entrances or on the platform fascias.

Paul S

On Monday, 4 June 2012 12:12:26 UTC+1, wrote:
On 04/06/2012 09:35, Jim wrote:

I never liked the name. It does not really give one an idea of where it is.
A reasonable name might have been LUDGATE.

It couldn't really have been LUDGATE because one entrance is at Holborn
Viaduct.

I much preferred the original name of ST PAUL'S THAMESLINK but
presumably this was changed to avoid confusion with St Pauls underground
station.

Why not Ludgate Thameslink, then?

The thing about the Thameslink part is that it doesn't really help; it is just an adscititious 10 letters that have to be added to every sign, map and timetable.
If it DID help, then those 10 letters would be added to the names of all the stations on the route...