North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thame
 

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Rupert Candy wrote:

...any more than people confuse Tottenham Court Road (here we go
again) with Tottenham Hale.

I know that happens.

Ditto Edgware Road and Edgware, which are
equally far apart.

I know that happens a lot, along with Finchley/Finchley Road.

We get confusion between King's Lynn and King's Cross at Cambridge as we
used to with the choice of London Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime
Street.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
 

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:40:51 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:23:33 GMT someone who may be
(John F Kappler) wrote this:-

AFAIR there hasn't ever been a serious (official) suggestion to
provide a link from there to Euston station and that makes me wonder
if there is something underground that might be in the way (e.g. major
services

There is perhaps a "river", otherwise known as a sewer. There are a
number that are very close to some of the surface (cut and cover)
lines. Of course the southern part of the Circle Line runs alongside
one of Bazalgette's interceptor sewers. These were a great danger in
the Second World War and flood gates were installed in some stations
because of them, rather then the Thames which was the usual reasons
for the gates. ISTR that the Fleet passes through the Kings Cross/St
Pancras station complex in a large pipe.

or even governmental).

It appears that most governmental tunnels in London (largely built
between the 1930s and 1950s, after which policy changed) were
somewhat further south of that area. There were some underground
buildings in various parts of London though.

The nearest non-transport tunnels will be somewhat lower than the
Circle Line tunnels having been bored deep enough to be below anything
other than tube lines. There might be a degree of obstruction caused
by the basements of adjacent buildings on the Euston Road if they
continue under the pavement but that should be cureable by the use of
sufficient building material and compensation.
snip
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
 

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:44:30 +0100 someone who may be Charles Ellson
wrote this:-

There might be a degree of obstruction caused
by the basements of adjacent buildings on the Euston Road if they
continue under the pavement but that should be cureable by the use of
sufficient building material and compensation.

Indeed. Any basements might make at least part of a station.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
 

Dave Arquati wrote:
asdf wrote:
IIRC only a relatively short length of tunnel would be required to
link the eastern ends of the platforms at Euston Square with Euston.
(Little chance of it ever happening, though.)

Quite the opposite actually - it's explicitly mentioned as a possible
outcome of the redevelopment of the mainline and Tube stations. See
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/125 and the links from there.

Just had a look at the architect drawings. It seems to me that there's
a real risk of repeating, fifty years on, the destruction of a landmark
building. The current Euston Station is, IMHO, a masterpiece of that
period's architecture. The drawings don't make it clear how much of
the existing building will be retained, but it certainly looks as if
it's going to be messed around with.

The previous Euston Station was demolished when its style was out of
fashion, and much regretted later. I think it's quite possible that
the same thing will happen again; we're just getting to a point where
buildings from that period are beginning to be appreciated, and it'd be
a shame to repeat the mistake.

Patrick

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thame
 

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:38 +0100 (BST), Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

Rupert Candy wrote:

...any more than people confuse Tottenham Court Road (here we go
again) with Tottenham Hale.

I know that happens.

Ditto Edgware Road and Edgware, which are
equally far apart.

I know that happens a lot, along with Finchley/Finchley Road.

We get confusion between King's Lynn and King's Cross at Cambridge as we
used to with the choice of London Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime
Street.

I've lost count of the number of people I've had to tell that Brentford
really isn't in essex.

Steve

London Terminals and Thameslink
 

Note that from Bedford at least, an all day travelcard is cheaper
than a standard return to Zone 1, so will be issued if anyone asks
for a return to a Zone 1 destination.

Is that still true with the evening peak travel restrictions now?


Sorry for the confusion, the naming isn't entirely clear,
an 'all day travelcard' is the peak version,
a 'one day travelcard' is the off-peak version.

Before the January 2006 fare changes, the all day travelcard was more
expensive than a standard (peak) return to U12,
but since then it has become cheaper, so there is now no requirement for a
return to any tube station, as the travelcard is cheaper.

The new evening peak restrictions do not apply to this ticket, as it is a
peak ticket anyway.

--
Peter

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
 

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:27:04 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:44:30 +0100 someone who may be Charles Ellson
wrote this:-

There might be a degree of obstruction caused
by the basements of adjacent buildings on the Euston Road if they
continue under the pavement but that should be cureable by the use of
sufficient building material and compensation.

Indeed. Any basements might make at least part of a station.

OTOH winding back a few more years to the construction of the Euston
underpass there might also be various displaced services under that
bit of pavement which are less easy to remove for either physical or
financial reasons.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
 

Phil Clark wrote:



"St Giles Circus" would clearly be a better name for the station, as
it more clearly locates the station - TCR is quite a long road and has
two other stations on it. Personally I think that street names should
only be used if they are very short streets and therefore the position
of the station is fairly obvious.


I apologise, firstly, for being a bit tardy responding to this posting,
but I only caught up with the rather interesting thread yesterday. I
agree with Phil that the logical name for Tottenham Court Road would
have been either 'St Giles' or 'St Giles Circus' But I can understand
why neither of those names were used. St. Giles was one of the worst
areas in London - the St. Giles rookeries were a by-word for
degradation, crime and squalor. Peter Ackroyd's London, the Biography
devotes an entire chapter to the area (Pp 131-143). The area might have
improved by the time the tube arrived, but memories would still be
alive as to what it had been like. One can imagine the mutton-chopped
Directors of the CLR sitting around the board room, shaking their heads
and saying they couldn't have their beautiful new electric railway
associated with such. Calling the station 'Charing Cross Road' would
only lead to confusion with the mainline station, nearly a mile away,
so the settled on the only other alternative.

By the time the Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway came 6 or 7
years later, running under Tottenham Court Road with stations at Warren
Street and Goodge Street on, or just off Tottenham Court Road the
stations had to be called such, although logically Goodge Street
should be more properly called TCR as the station lies on that latter
thoroughfare.

Incidentally, I spent the first 12 years of my working life in an
office at 1 Oxford Street, built on nearly top of the TCR booking hall
- but actually it wasn't in Oxford Street, but round the corner in
Charing Cross Road (and from the windows of which I watched Centre
Point built, but that's another story) - so the confusion doesn't only
lie with the names of tube stations!

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thame
 

In article ,
Steve wrote:
I've lost count of the number of people I've had to tell that Brentford
really isn't in essex.

And that Loughborouch Junction isn't in Leicestershire...

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
 

In message , Phil Clark
writes

I used to work on North Gower Street (yes we called the location
"Euston") and always wondered why Euston Square station not only was
not on Euston Square, which is by the mainline station, but had never
been connected up underground with either Euston or Warren Street
underground stations to form a proper interchange.

Although I think the main reason for the southerly position of Euston
Square station was the need to keep the original line beneath the "New
Road", I have often wondered whether the close association of the
Metropolitan with the GWR made it less inclined to go out of its way to
offer easy interchange with the "Birmingham Railway" at a time when the
GWR had its own route to Birmingham (I've not checked dates against a
contemporary Bradshaw, but I *think* that could be an issue).
--
Paul Terry