In message , at 15:26:36 on Wed,
1 Dec 2004, Ian Jelf remarked:
I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether
or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being
part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true?

See if there's a Lord Lieutenant of Southend!
--
Roland Perry

In message , Ian Jelf
writes

I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether
or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being
part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremon...ies_of_England

"Essex, including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock"

--
Paul Terry

In article , Ian Jelf
writes
Wow. Then I stand corrected.

It surprised me when I first came across the concept (the County of
Peterborough).

I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether
or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being
part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true?

There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial
purposes".

Lord-lieutenancies are defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997. This has
its own definition of "county"; in England this *mostly* follows the
1972 county boundaries (as amended from time to time), but has some
special cases listed in Schedule 1. For example, the lieutenancy county
(my term) of Bedfordshire contains both the County of Bedfordshire and
the County of Luton, while the County of Stockton-on-Tees is split by
the river Tees; the northern half being in the lieutenancy county of
Durham and the southern half in North Yorkshire.

Shrievalities (is that the word?) are defined by section 38 of the
Sheriffs Act 1887. Again this follows the 1972 counties except where
modified by Schedule 2A (created by S.I. 1995 No. 1748); I have not
attempted to determine where the shrievalities don't match the
lieutenancies.

S.I. 1997 No. 1992 amends both schedules in question to include the
entries:
Essex Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock

(and, for Roland:
Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire and Nottingham
).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Ian Jelf
writes
Wow. Then I stand corrected.

It surprised me when I first came across the concept (the County of
Peterborough).
Where (again) the authority calls itself "The City of Peterborough",
doesn't it? It's almost as though these places all have the status of
counties without realising it!

I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether
or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being
part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true?

There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial purposes".
I first heard the term applied in the 1990s when County Durham was
"relieved" of Darlington and Hartlepool and Stockton were placed within
it (previously having been in Cleveland) for these "ceremonial"
purposes. Apart from the wikipaedia reference I (frustratingly) now
can't find any reference to the term anywhere. I really believed that
it did have official status but it would seem that it doesn't. Either
my memory is faulty or the concept was short lived.

I also recall the same being mentioned in Hampshire and Dorset when
Bournemouth became a Unitary Authority and there was some debate locally
about whether or not it should be in the "Ceremonial Country" of
Hampshire or Dorset and the same again in Derbyshire when Derby opted
out.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes

[snip]
There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial
purposes".
I first heard the term applied in the 1990s when County Durham was
"relieved" of Darlington and Hartlepool and Stockton were placed
within it (previously having been in Cleveland) for these
"ceremonial" purposes. Apart from the wikipaedia reference I
(frustratingly) now can't find any reference to the term anywhere.

See
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/60229w02.htm
and
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...605206-01.hcsp

There's nothing new about the concept. When we had County Boroughs, they
were still counted as within the old/ceremonial/traditional/geographic
counties. For example, the County Borough of Reading was still regarded
as being in Berkshire despite being independent of it as far as local
government was concerned, even to the extent of having its own police
force. The same (apart from the police) is now true once again as there
is no county council of Berkshire, but it remains a ceremonial county.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , at
23:11:37 on Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Richard J.
remarked:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...605206-01.hcsp

The Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock,
and District of Tendring)(Structural, Boundary and Electoral
Changes) Order 1996 - S.I. 1996 No. 1875

This Order was made on 18 July 1996. The Order created two
continuing unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock,
which are associated with Essex for ceremonial purposes.

As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials,
handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the
earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a
resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to
Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"?

[1] Which as far as I can see involves one change and a minimum journey
time of 44 minutes.
--
Roland Perry

In article , Richard J.
writes
There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial
purposes".

See
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../vo960229/text
/60229w02.htm
and
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...ents/page/odpm
_locgov_605206-01.hcsp

Thanks for that.

It looks like civil servants are using the term "ceremonial county" as a
convenient shorthand, but the legislation itself doesn't.

For example, the County Borough of Reading was still regarded
as being in Berkshire despite being independent of it as far as local
government was concerned, even to the extent of having its own police
force.

As indeed did Southend-on-Sea. Complete with white helmets.

And for some years after amalgamation[*], it was the "Essex and
Southend-on-Sea Joint Constabulary".
[*] The former Southend area was expanded into Rayleigh and Rochford and
then split into two, forming H (Southend East) and J (Southend West)
Divisions. The old Southend HQ became H Divisional HQ, while J got a new
police station on Rayleigh High Street.

Seeing that S-o-S officers kept their shoulder numbers, and Essex
officers got renumbered in the event of a clash, it's arguable that
Southend was seen as the more important force :-)

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"David Marsh" wrote in
message al.lan...

Dave Arquati's quote in uk.railway
about: Eurostar to quit Waterloo

Just a general comment in this thread; everyone is assuming that people
will transfer from Waterloo to St Pancras, but there will also be a
direct transfer between Waterloo and Stratford, which only takes 23
minutes platform to platform, compared to the 16 minutes for Waterloo to
St Pancras. There will hopefully be a travelator at Stratford to
compensate for it being a longer interchange than St Pancras.

That's a good point (and a remarkably quick journey in comparison,
considering that it's going much further). Will every eurostar be stopping
at Stratford, though?


How infeasible (read: costly) would it be to build an underground
travelator link between Euston Station (with access from the mainline
and the Underground) to St Pancras International (also linking with
King's Cross and King's Cross / St Pancras Underground)?

It's only about 500 m on the surface, and given the nature of all the
existing gubbins underground, probably less than that in practice.

The existing gubbins underground is rather the problem. There's so much
down there, it would be difficult to find somewhere to put the tunnel

Oh, I know :-)

Would it be possible for the travelator to go at roughly the same depth,
but parallel to the Metropolitan line?

(I'm presuming all the other 'deep tube' lines are indeed, somewhere
deeper at this point - it must be quite a job for someone just keeping
accurate tabs on what, exactly, is all down there, and where exactly
they all are!)

Rather than a travelator, what about an unmanned shuttle like those used at
Gatwick between the rail station and the North Terminal, or between the
South Terminal and the satellite? It could go above ground or below ground.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Roland Perry wrote:

As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials,
handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the
earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a
resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to
Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"?

No.

The reason we can't is because it's obvious - it would be madness to take
the train if the car is faster.

The argument we were having before all this county business blew up was
really a failure to agree on what 'Essex' means: you think of it as the
bit where you live (i'm guessing), and i think of it as the bit where i
grew up - let's call them Inner and Outer Essex. People in Inner Essex,
like this resident of Thurrock you mention, will probably drive to
Ebbsfleet, or even to Ashford, or, if they need to use public transport,
take some sort of coach there. People in Outer Essex are more likely to
come to London, and either change at Stratford, or, if their train doesn't
stop there, go from Liverpool Street to either King's Cross or Stratford.

I'd be interested to know just how many people are in the catchment areas
the two options. I suppose Inner Essex (defined here as that part of Essex
from which Kent is a better option than London!) is the most densely
populated part of the county, given its proximity to London, but it's
geographically quite small, i think. Also, i don't know exactly where the
boundary of the areas is; you seem to think Kent would be a better option
from Chelmsford, but i think the existence of fast trains means London
would be competitive. I'm also not sure about the Harlow area; presumably,
the good connections to Liverpool Street, and the impending West Anglia
services direct to Stratford, would put it in the London basin. The thing
to do would be to sit down for every town and work out the times by train
and car - doable using the NR journey planner and the AA website, i
suppose. Not entirely sure i can be bothered, though.

tom

--
That's no moon!

In message ,
at 12:57:38 on Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Tom Anderson
remarked:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Roland Perry wrote:

As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials,
handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the
earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a
resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to
Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"?

No.

The reason we can't is because it's obvious - it would be madness to take
the train if the car is faster.

The argument we were having before all this county business blew up was
really a failure to agree on what 'Essex' means: you think of it as the
bit where you live (i'm guessing), and i think of it as the bit where i
grew up - let's call them Inner and Outer Essex.

I spent a long time in Essex, but live elsewhere now. I grew up with
Romford and Ilford as "genuine" bits of Essex, but these days I think
that psychologically most people regard inside the M25 as "London".

Meanwhile, there's not much population north of the A12, and past Witham
it's more realistic that a train would be faster than a car.

Which leaves the area I was talking about originally.

you seem to think Kent would be a better option from Chelmsford, but i
think the existence of fast trains means London would be competitive.

Yes, it's borderline, but there are two other factors: most Chelmsford
people live in big estates around the edge of town - getting to the
station is a pain, and there's no long term parking at all. And it's a
very car-orientated place, so people are likely to head for the A12 as a
reflex action.

I'm also not sure about the Harlow area; presumably,
the good connections to Liverpool Street, and the impending West Anglia
services direct to Stratford, would put it in the London basin.

But again, the station isn't the most accessible one in the world, and
the M25 beckons for getting to Kent.
--
Roland Perry