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

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

"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.

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

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

Mainly not, I agree. Just connections at Ely.

The through trains to Liverpool now operate from Norwich, and the
Stansted/Cambridge trains operate to Birmingham.

I think there are still one or two daily services that depart from this
pattern, apart from the Central Norwich-Cambridge services.

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.

They are only advertised as to Colchester at Peterborough, though, and I
think at Ely too.

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.

Not on current thinking. The recently announced franchise specification
retains Norwich-Liverpool trains with the possibility of some being
diverted to Cambridge if 'one' will provide more Norwich-Peterboroughs.
They have, AIUI, left open the possibility of a Nottingham split, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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?

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)

"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

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

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 |//___\\|