|
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
In message , at 22:26:02 on Mon, 10 Jul
2006, Peter Masson remarked: Confusion between Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street (e.g. from Cambridge, or even from Euston) could alos have significant (and in the recounting, hilarious) consequences. The direct trains from Cambridge to Liverpool Lime St (one of which I think departed at the same time as a train to London Liverpool St) do not run any more. The through trains to Liverpool now operate from Norwich, and the Stansted/Cambridge trains operate to Birmingham. However, 'one' has introduced a few through trains a day between Peterborough and Liverpool St (via Ipswich), so you there's a possible confusion between those and the Norwich-Liverpool trains between Peterborough and Ely. However, when the Central franchise is split up soon, the Nottingham-Liverpool section of the route is likely to be hived off to a different operator, so that leaves just a few Kings Lynn-Liverpool St and Peterborough-Liverpool St trains interesting at Ely. -- Roland Perry |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminalsand Thameslink)
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Roland Perry wrote:
However, 'one' has introduced a few through trains a day between Peterborough and Liverpool St (via Ipswich), so you there's a possible confusion between those and the Norwich-Liverpool trains between Peterborough and Ely. I think they would be shown as to "Shenfield" - they definatly are at Peterborough (or were when I last used one). Cheers Chris -- Chris Johns |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
"Chris Johns" wrote in message cal... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Roland Perry wrote: However, 'one' has introduced a few through trains a day between Peterborough and Liverpool St (via Ipswich), so you there's a possible confusion between those and the Norwich-Liverpool trains between Peterborough and Ely. I think they would be shown as to "Shenfield" - they definatly are at Peterborough (or were when I last used one). Correct. I have witnessed confusion between Shenfield and Sheffield at Peterborough. |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
In message , at
09:19:55 on Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Chris Johns remarked: However, 'one' has introduced a few through trains a day between Peterborough and Liverpool St (via Ipswich), so you there's a possible confusion between those and the Norwich-Liverpool trains between Peterborough and Ely. I think they would be shown as to "Shenfield" - they definatly are at Peterborough (or were when I last used one). Ah yes, the "foxton" effect. I suspect they are doing this to avoid people getting that train to *London* by mistake (GNER being 2hours faster). -- Roland Perry |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thame
|
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thame
Richard J. wrote: victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article .com, (victormeldrewsyoungerbrother) wrote: although logically Goodge Street should be more properly called TCR as the station lies on that latter thoroughfare. Wasn't it actually called that at first? -- Colin Rosenstiel My whole supposition was wrong. I've checked Leboff & Demuth's 'No Need to Ask' which is the story of the Underground map. In 1907, when the CEHR was opened Goodge Street was, in fact, called Tottenham Court Road, shown as such on a number of reproduced maps of that year. The present TCR was called Oxford Street. By 1908 the Goodge Street name was being used and Oxford Street had turned into TCR. Apologies for this - I should have checked first. I have no information why the name changed. Later Or did it - as I type this I've checked backwards in the book to a map of 1902, CLR only. and TCR is called that, as it is on a map of 1904. The book has 2 1906 maps published for what was to become the Bakerloo. Those show both names. One, indeed, shows 2 stations called Tottenham Court Road - one as now and the other the current Goodge Street. This is all very odd. I've never picked up on this before. Does anyone know the what happened and why? The CLR station was always TCR. The CEHR (now Northern Line) named theirs in isolation, and produced the confusion you describe, hence presumably the reason for the change. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) I'd been thinking about his, and guessed such was the case - but why the maps showing TCR as Oxford Street? Was there a renaming, or was a renaming proposed which didn't go ahead - it being realised that to have Oxford Circus and Oxford Street next to each other would cause total confusion? Or did the (now) Northern line have a proposal for its own station at St Giles Circus without the interchange which it was going to call Oxford Street? |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thame
victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:
why the maps showing TCR as Oxford Street? See my post of 10 July 2006 23:06 UK time. The station had two names in 1907-8, one for each line. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in
: "St Pancras" is an old village name that everyone now uses for just the railway station, It is also used to describe - two churches, neither of which are close to the Station - the main building of the British Library http://www.bl.uk/about/opening.html -- Andrew Black London |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
In message , Peter Masson
writes "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message ... Mizter T wrote: By the by I'm not sure North Greenwich station should really be have been named as such, it should perhaps have been named Greenwich Peninsula instead. Why? There was long gone North Greenwich station (closed 1926) on the southern tip of the Isle of Dogs over the river from Greenwich - see the Disused Stations website [1]. So Ryanair style dubious naming was in practice way back then! This mirrors the north-of-the-river naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper. Yes but wasn't North Woolwich administratively part of Woolwich? I don't think it was part of the Hams pre 1965. It was indeed in Woolwich Borough in LCC days. IIRC North Woolwich was part of Kent before the LCC was set up, and indeed, part of the Kingdom of Kent when it was independent of the rest of England in around the 8th Century. I have always wondered how that curious administrative situation came about and have never been able to find a definitive reply. Indeed, I wasn't even sure that it had been "tidied up" with the 1965 local government reorganisation. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:52:34 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote: In message , Peter Masson writes "Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message ... Mizter T wrote: By the by I'm not sure North Greenwich station should really be have been named as such, it should perhaps have been named Greenwich Peninsula instead. Why? There was long gone North Greenwich station (closed 1926) on the southern tip of the Isle of Dogs over the river from Greenwich - see the Disused Stations website [1]. So Ryanair style dubious naming was in practice way back then! This mirrors the north-of-the-river naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper. Yes but wasn't North Woolwich administratively part of Woolwich? I don't think it was part of the Hams pre 1965. It was indeed in Woolwich Borough in LCC days. IIRC North Woolwich was part of Kent before the LCC was set up, and indeed, part of the Kingdom of Kent when it was independent of the rest of England in around the 8th Century. I have always wondered how that curious administrative situation came about and have never been able to find a definitive reply. Indeed, I wasn't even sure that it had been "tidied up" with the 1965 local government reorganisation. Like other anomolies it probably goes back to long before local authorities were invented and boundaries were defined by the local nobility or the Crown. In the case of North Woolwich it's possibly the latter in association with the ferry crossing and various ancient naval activities in the area, although ISTR the surrounding area was originally marshland which might have presented a more impenetrable boundary than the Thames itself resulting in access being easier via the Kent side and the land thus being more easily treated as part of Kent. -- _______ +---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //| | Charles Ellson: | | \\ // | +---------------------------------------------------+ | | | // \\ | Alba gu brath |//___\\| |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk