In message
-septe
mber.org, Clank writes

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?

No, you will find the Manor of Ebury.

The area is actually Belgravia, after all.

That's as much an upstart as Victoria: Belgravia is named after Viscount
Belgrave (aka Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster) who
developed the area in the 19th century. Belgrave is on the Grosvenor
family estate in Cheshire.
--
Paul Terry

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:51:39 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
The Waterloo and City is almost a case of a name still reflecting the
two termini.

I'd forgotten about that!

--
Spud

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:55:54 on Tue, 4 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?

No, because it's only become known as that since [what?] 150 years ago.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:18:58
on Tue, 4 Jun 2013, David Cantrell remarked:
Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service?

Flying Scotsman.

Although it appears to have been retired (northbound, anyway) by the
latest operator. They only have "Northern Lights", "Highland Chieftain"
and "Hull Executive".

It remains southbound, however.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Paul Terry
writes
In message
-septe
mber.org, Clank writes

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?

No, you will find the Manor of Ebury.

The area is actually Belgravia, after all.

That's as much an upstart as Victoria:

Wasn't the area Pimlico before all this Victoriana started?
--
Bill Borland

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septe
mber.org, at 11:55:54 on Tue, 4 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?

No, because it's only become known as that since [what?] 150 years ago.

Precisely my point.

Unless you think history has stopped? Did I miss the moment when London
was flooded with aspic?

On 04/06/2013 12:55, 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.


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've seen that done on maps of networks which use non-Roman alphabets
for the native names, or on new lines where the station name hasn't yet
been finalised (they've not decided whether station A5 is "Bloggs
Square" or "MegaBank Inc station".

I found the Moscow metro harder to navigate than expected, as while I
can manage a bit of Cyrillic it was hard if there are places with
similar names, or upper/lower case issues.

Some places apparently use colours or shapes to help illiterate people.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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

Try letting an American ask the question and you'll find all sorts of
oddities.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

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.

MML? Midland Main Line. I'd hate to think what the anti-Thatcher brigade
would call it!

In message , Bill Borland
writes

In article , Paul Terry
writes

No, you will find the Manor of Ebury.

Wasn't the area Pimlico before all this Victoriana started?

Pimlico is certainly older than Victoria - it first appeared in the 17th
century for the southern part of the Manor of Ebury (origin uncertain,
but possibly named after a publican and/or a type of beer that he sold).

However, Ebury ("Eia" in the Doomsday Book, later Eye, then Eybury or
Ebury) is the ancient name for the entire area that stretched south from
Oxford Street to the Thames.

--
Paul Terry