In article ,
d wrote:
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.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.


--
Mike Bristow

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
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.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

Some places name their lines after the 2 termini at each end though I've
never liked that since its long winded and not much use unless you actually
need to go to one of them.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:53:46 on
Tue, 4 Jun 2013, Basil Jet 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"

I've never heard anyone ask that.

They might ask "is this train for Victoria" (if they are on *any* of the
lines passing through the station). Or they might, if extremely lost,
ask "is this a Victoria Line train" (rather than, say, a Northern Line
train).

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:27:53 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:

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.

And it's a rubbish solution. At least the current names often have a
mnemonic sense (Central, Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith and City,
Waterloo and City...)
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 02:42:15PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service?

Flying Scotsman.

Only LU has named lines.

The Marshlink Line disagrees with you.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

Your call is important to me. To see if it's important to
you I'm going to make you wait on hold for five minutes.
All calls are recorded for blackmail and amusement purposes.

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:24:19PM +0100, 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 too like the name Crossrail, but if Crossrail 2 happens then they
really both need distinctive names.

Of course, the routes proposed for Crossrail 2 are stupid and so I hope
it doesn't happen.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Wow, my first sigquoting! I feel so special now!
-- Dan Sugalski

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.

Err, Victoria is an area of London - was it ever thus? If I dig up a map
of London in the middle ages will I find an area called Victoria?

The area is actually Belgravia, after all. Perchance the area become
commonly known as Victoria after the station was named such? (And I rather
imagine that Victoria Street, wot lent its name to said station, may have
been named after a monarch, although I am just guessing...)


I'm sure we can find an Elizabeth Street somewhere on the route of
Crossrail to satisfy the historical precedent, anyway.

wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
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.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

I *completely* disagree. Names are much easier to memorise and form
associations with than apparently random letter/number combinations.


If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdum (which I know you won't,) by
your theory we should drop station names and just give them reference
numbers...

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:55:54 +0000 (UTC)
Clank wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
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.

It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.

Less confusing though.

I *completely* disagree. Names are much easier to memorise and form
associations with than apparently random letter/number combinations.

Perhaps it depends on the person. I never had a problem getting around
new york for example.

If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdum (which I know you won't,) by
your theory we should drop station names and just give them reference
numbers...

I hate to tell you - but this is exactly what they did on the Kiev Metro
when the world cup - or some inflated pigs bladder event - was there in 2012.
Ok, they didn't drop the names but they did given them all numbers.

http://www.metro.kiev.ua/node/101

--
Spud

In message ,
d writes

Some places name their lines after the 2 termini at each end though I've
never liked that since its long winded and not much use unless you actually
need to go to one of them.

In practice they often get shortened: the Bakerloo was originally the
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, and the Piccadilly started life as
the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (all four being termini when
first planned).

The Waterloo and City is almost a case of a name still reflecting the
two termini.

--
Paul Terry