In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2016\01\21 16:41, Recliner wrote:

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London,

Not quite... Potters Bar was handed over to Hertfordshire.

And the present Borough of Spelthorne (Ashford, Staines, Sunbury, etc) to
Surrey.

but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

There is also a Middlesex Football Association and presumably
countless other societies. There are also new Middlesex signs that
have been put up at the border within the last few years. Here's one..



=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sV0OriaqNUk5d_6hdsCrtrQ!2e0?force=l ite

It's also odd that places like Bromley still pretend to be in Kent,
though at least Kent still exists, unlike Middlesex.

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:41:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now
modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Kent, specifically two parts of Woolwich (i.e. North Woolwich and
another nearby bit whose name I can't recall ATM).

You're thinking of North Greenwich, in the Isle of Dogs. These enclaves
don't really count. They were consequences of the river's course changing as
the docks developed.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:41:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now
modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Kent, specifically two parts of Woolwich (i.e. North Woolwich and
another nearby bit whose name I can't recall ATM).

You're thinking of North Greenwich, in the Isle of Dogs. These enclaves
don't really count. They were consequences of the river's course changing as
the docks developed.

No, he was right. North Greenwich in the IOD was never in Kent and was
never a part of anything southern, unlike North Woolwich which was part
of Woolwich.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

You can say particular places still exist, but Middlesex isn't a place. It
was an arbitrary area that's been largely subsumed into a number of London
boroughs, with small bits going to other counties. Some older
organisations and societies might retain the name for historical reasons,
but that's all that's left of it.

On 2016\01\22 02:16, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

You can say particular places still exist, but Middlesex isn't a place. It
was an arbitrary area that's been largely subsumed into a number of London
boroughs, with small bits going to other counties. Some older
organisations and societies might retain the name for historical reasons,
but that's all that's left of it.


Apart from the recent signs marking its boundary.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:16, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\22 02:00, wrote:
In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed
for hundreds of years before it had a council.

We are discussing administrative areas. There is none for Middlesex. When it
was a county its HQ was in London anyway. It was wiped out by the growth of
London. It's gone. It is an ex-county as far as administration of services
for people as opposed to backward-looking sentimentality is concerned.

It's not backward or sentimental. It's a place. Same as Friern Barnet is
a place even though its former Town Hall is a block of flats now. Same
as "The West End" has been a place for centuries despite never appearing
on any map.

You can say particular places still exist, but Middlesex isn't a place. It
was an arbitrary area that's been largely subsumed into a number of London
boroughs, with small bits going to other counties. Some older
organisations and societies might retain the name for historical reasons,
but that's all that's left of it.


Apart from the recent signs marking its boundary.

Yes, those are weird. Talk about a waste of money! It seems councils still
have more money than sense.

In message , at 19:30:32 on Thu, 21
Jan 2016, Robin9 remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/jo9jopt
entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.htm

Sounds very ambitious.

What I don't really understand is the concept of "running services"
within London vs further afield when many of the trains will cross the
boundary. For example they mention GN and Welwyn Garden City, but does
this mean they'll only be transferring the terminators (which serve
Moorgate), rather than the Peterborough/Letchworth/Cambridge trains?

Is there any reason to assume that TfL/London Overground
can do a better job than the current franchise holders?

I know the present service is far better and passenger numbers
far greater than was the case during the Silverlink period; but
have those improvements been the result of unusual aptitudes
and skills? Is it not the case that heavy investment - and access
to funds - is the main reason things have improved? Is there any
evidence to suggest that TfL/London Overground have more
management skill, knowledge and understanding than their
counterparts among the current TOCs?

Why should we believe that handing all these services over to
London Overground will make things better?


It's been said several times that TSGN is probably "too big to be
manageable" - by Govia anyway. Slimming it down by shifting some of the
services to an alternative operator (and alternative operator) might
help.

Also, there are probably some compromises involved when operating both
short and middle distance routes simultaneously, so again splitting into
[any] two operations could have advantages.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:12:39 -0000, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:


"Recliner" wrote

happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London, but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

"entirely absorbed"

Not so, thus Surrey got Sunbury, Shepperton, Ashford and Staines;
Hertfordshire got Potters Bar and in further changes Berkshire got Poyle.

For extra credit, point out the bit of Surrey that was north of the Thames
before these changes.

The Royal Mail dropped county names from addresses years ago.

Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 01:12:39 -0000, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:


"Recliner" wrote

happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London, but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

"entirely absorbed"

Not so, thus Surrey got Sunbury, Shepperton, Ashford and Staines;
Hertfordshire got Potters Bar and in further changes Berkshire got Poyle.

For extra credit, point out the bit of Surrey that was north of the Thames
before these changes.

The Royal Mail dropped county names from addresses years ago.

Yes, but too many web forms still make it a mandatory field, probably
because they were originally designed to collect US addresses.