In message 2013060314223958701-nospam@nospamcom, at 14:22:39 on Mon, 3
Jun 2013, eastender remarked:

Barons Court becomes Barons Caught.

That would be Westminster, surely?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:15 on
Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service, albeit procured by TfL? Only LU has named lines.

err... Thameslink. Robin Hood Line...

Indeed.

Anyway, the article I read said the line should be named *after* her Maj,
it doesn't actually give a suggested name.

In which case, I fail to see what would be wrong with the Elizabeth Line.
The Victoria Line provides a very concrete and hard to argue with
precedent, after all.

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 14:38:08 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Clank
remarked:

I fail to see what would be wrong with the Elizabeth Line.

Sounds like something involved in world cruises.

And "Victoria" is an area of London, but "Elizabeth" isn't.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Corfield wrote:

I still think Crossrail should be called Crossrail. It's an
established name and I think it neatly explains what the line's
essential purpose is - a fast rail link (a)cross London. I accept I'm
probably in a minority but that's nothing new!

I'd go with that, just as attempts to call Thameslink anything other than
Thameslink have just left the pinky-purply mob looking a bit silly.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 03/06/2013 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:15 on
Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service, albeit procured by TfL? Only LU has named lines.

err... Thameslink. Robin Hood Line...

Avocet, Bittern, Wherry, Abbey....

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:07:32 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 14:42:15 on
Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service, albeit procured by TfL? Only LU has named lines.

err... Thameslink. Robin Hood Line...

Fair comment Roland (and others).

Thameslink is a notable exception but there is not quite the same
level of coherent branding and naming on the NR network as there is on
the Tube network.

Bits of the rail network tend to be associated with the company
running the service (now or long ago) or some geographic link with
places served or the line runs near to (e.g. Brighton main line, Great
Western, East Coast Main Line).

The copying of TfL's "status boards" has meant some companies now
allocate names to particular services or groups thereof. Southern
Railway does this on their website.

I still think Crossrail should be called Crossrail. It's an
established name and I think it neatly explains what the line's
essential purpose is - a fast rail link (a)cross London. I accept I'm
probably in a minority but that's nothing new!

No, I agree with you about Crossrail. Given that Boris's quote was from his
Telegraph column, I think we can presume that both his emphasis on business
for non-London concerns and patriotic naming suggestion can be regarded as
support for his future leadership bid.

On 03/06/2013 20:01, Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 03/06/2013 15:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:42:15 on
Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service, albeit procured by TfL? Only LU has named lines.

err... Thameslink. Robin Hood Line...

Avocet, Bittern, Wherry, Abbey....


"Free train"... (NLL before the TfL takeover)

On 03/06/2013 18:24, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:07:32 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service, albeit procured by TfL? Only LU has named lines.

err... Thameslink. Robin Hood Line...

Fair comment Roland (and others).

Thameslink is a notable exception but there is not quite the same
level of coherent branding and naming on the NR network as there is on
the Tube network.

Bits of the rail network tend to be associated with the company
running the service (now or long ago) or some geographic link with
places served or the line runs near to (e.g. Brighton main line, Great
Western, East Coast Main Line).

The copying of TfL's "status boards" has meant some companies now
allocate names to particular services or groups thereof. Southern
Railway does this on their website.

I still think Crossrail should be called Crossrail. It's an
established name and I think it neatly explains what the line's
essential purpose is - a fast rail link (a)cross London. I accept I'm
probably in a minority but that's nothing new!


The Margaret Memorial Line.

For any right thinking Londoner, that's where the discussion ends.

On 2013\06\03 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septem
ber.org, at 14:38:08 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Clank
remarked:

I fail to see what would be wrong with the Elizabeth Line.

Sounds like something involved in world cruises.

And "Victoria" is an area of London, but "Elizabeth" isn't.

All the better: naming a tube line after a place is dumb, because the
question "Is this a Victoria train" becomes ambiguous (since a train
heading away from Victoria either is or isn't a Victoria train,
depending on how you think about it).

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:53:46 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\03 16:49, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septem
ber.org, at 14:38:08 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Clank
remarked:

I fail to see what would be wrong with the Elizabeth Line.

Sounds like something involved in world cruises.

And "Victoria" is an area of London, but "Elizabeth" isn't.

All the better: naming a tube line after a place is dumb, because the
question "Is this a Victoria train" becomes ambiguous (since a train
heading away from Victoria either is or isn't a Victoria train,
depending on how you think about it).

Just naming lines after numbers or letters would be easier for all concerned,
but you usually only get that if an entire system is planned from the start.

--
Spud