Mizter T wrote:

I'm still curious about how the railway company (the Millwall Extension
Rly, which may have been subsidiary of sorts to the London & Blackwall
Rly) gave North Greenwich station it's name. My leaky memory has just
this moment recalled reading something about this in the past - I think
the suggestion was that the North Greenwich station name was an
'aspirational' one, i.e. it was trading on the good name of Greenwich
to the south of the river. Perhaps there were housebuilders involved in
the financing of the railway, or indeed the railway had their hand in
the property market. Or the railway just wanted to encourage people to
live in the area in order to build up patronage.

Was the foot tunnel in operation at the time? If so then the station may
have been named to attract passengers who wanted to go to Greenwich (as I
said Ryanair were hardly the first to do this sort of thing - see also
Wanstead Park).

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I'm still curious about how the railway company (the Millwall Extension
Rly, which may have been subsidiary of sorts to the London & Blackwall
Rly) gave North Greenwich station it's name. My leaky memory has just
this moment recalled reading something about this in the past - I think
the suggestion was that the North Greenwich station name was an
'aspirational' one, i.e. it was trading on the good name of Greenwich
to the south of the river. Perhaps there were housebuilders involved in
the financing of the railway, or indeed the railway had their hand in
the property market. Or the railway just wanted to encourage people to
live in the area in order to build up patronage.

Was the foot tunnel in operation at the time? If so then the station may
have been named to attract passengers who wanted to go to Greenwich (as I
said Ryanair were hardly the first to do this sort of thing - see also
Wanstead Park).


Good point, I hadn't though of it that way round.

Nor had I appreciated the absurdity behind the naming of Wanstead Park
station. A more honest station name would've been Wanstead Flats, but
it doesn't quite have the same ring to it!

I've read a few old threads on uk.railway where absurd station names
were discussed. I do think it's fascinating (especially in urban areas
such as London) the way the railway's naming of stations can alter
popular understanding of the location of certain areas, the way the
railway utilised aspirational names for some stations, and even the way
places can take their name from pre-existing nearby stations (the names
of which might be somewhat misleading in the first place). This
interplay between the railway's use (and abuse) of established place
names and the railway itself establishing 'new places' and thus place
names is especially interesting in London.

Clapham Junction is really in Battersea, over a mile from Clapham
proper, but at the time of the station was named Clapham sounded posher
than Battersea (and it probably still does). Given so much development
has taken place because of the arrival of the railway it's fair enough
that the area is now popularly called Clapham Junction. In this sense
the aspiration to be Clapham has become reality - well, a semi-reality
really, as those familiar with the area would appreciate the
distinction between Clapham and Clapham Junction.

Willesden Junction is aspirational in that it took the name of the more
upmarket district of Willesden and named a major station in adjacent
Harlesden after it.

East Dulwich station is on the north-west edge of the Victorian suburb
it purportedly serves, and is in fact considerably further north than
North Dulwich station which is on the same line - confusing to those
who aren't familiar with the area (and even those who are). The suburb
of East Dulwich is itself aspirationally named after Dulwich Village -
developers considered calling the area South Peckham (at the time
Peckham was considered quite an upmarket district), but association
with the Dulwich name won the day.

The presence of Victoria station has meant that people popularly refer
to the locality as Victoria, but really there's no such district as
Victoria - it's either Pimlico, Belgravia or Westminster. In this case
the area was inhabited and developed before the coming of the railway,
so I'd urge the use of the 'proper' place names. But ultimately people
name places, so if enough people know it as and thus call it Victoria,
then I guess that's what the place becomes.

Which leads on to what I consider to be an example of an place being
rechristened by the railway - Kings Cross. The area was a village
called Battle Bridge. In 1835 a monument was erected to King George IV
- i.e. the 'Kings Cross' - though it only lasted until 1845. In 1852
Kings Cross station opened. I doubt that in the ten years the monument
was up the old area name of Battle Bridge vanished from use - perhaps
it was used in tandem with Kings Cross, but it was surely the decision
to name the new railway station that opened there 'Kings Cross' as
opposed to 'Battle Bridge' (presumably KX was considered a better name)
that sunk the old place name of Battle Bridge into the murky waters of
history.

Mizter T wrote:

Was the foot tunnel in operation at the time? If so then the station may
have been named to attract passengers who wanted to go to Greenwich (as I
said Ryanair were hardly the first to do this sort of thing - see also
Wanstead Park).

Good point, I hadn't though of it that way round.

Nor had I appreciated the absurdity behind the naming of Wanstead Park
station. A more honest station name would've been Wanstead Flats, but
it doesn't quite have the same ring to it!

"Forest Gate North" would frankly be the most accurate name. Wanstead Flats
is literally just over the Newham-Redbridge border and there is a very
noticable change of area as one walks there from the station. However I
suspect the fact that it's not a valid interchange with Forest Gate would
rule out FGN as a station name.

I've read a few old threads on uk.railway where absurd station names
were discussed. I do think it's fascinating (especially in urban areas
such as London) the way the railway's naming of stations can alter
popular understanding of the location of certain areas, the way the
railway utilised aspirational names for some stations, and even the way
places can take their name from pre-existing nearby stations (the names
of which might be somewhat misleading in the first place).

Oh definitely. Wikipedia editors once got in a mess trying to say where
Euston is - "Camden" may be the borough name but everyone thinks of Camden
Town, "St Pancras" is an old village name that everyone now uses for just
the railway station, "Bloomsbury" clearly stops at the other side of the
road and "Euston" is what a lot of people call the area but not much use
here given what they've taken the name from!

There are some people who think Wanstead Flats is actually called Wanstead
Park - and the signs there don't always correct them. I often used to call
various shop branches the "Tottenham Court Road branch" even though most
were on the other three roads that intersect at the crossroads the station
is on.

One of QMUL's halls of residence is located behind Stepney Green tube
station but I suspect very few who've ever stayed there realise that the
green stretch in front of them is not Stepney Green, which is a short walk
the other side of the Whitechapel (or is it Mile End) road.

Shoreditch is one of the more interesting points of confusion, not least
because the (now closed) tube station was never in the old Metropolitan
Borough of Shoreditch. Through in some Hackney council maps that
inaccurately don't claim the church with "the bells of Shoreditch" (I forget
the church name) and five separate post codes converging on the area and one
is left totally confused as to where it is.

Mercifully I've yet to hear someone call an area "City Thameslink".

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 14:41:51 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

I often used to call
various shop branches the "Tottenham Court Road branch" even though most
were on the other three roads that intersect at the crossroads the station
is on.

"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.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

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.

I also favour Tyburn for Marble Arch, but that's nothing much to do
with accuracy, just a liking for the seamier side of history.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Phil Clark wrote:

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.

Good point. A passer-by asked me the other day which way to Great
Western Road. I could have given them three convenient routes from
where we were standing, depending on where they really wanted to get
to.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

I suspect the "American convention" would really give you
"Tottenham Court and Oxford", which might be a bit confusing :-}

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:03:15 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Phil Clark wrote:

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.

Good point. A passer-by asked me the other day which way to Great
Western Road. I could have given them three convenient routes from
where we were standing, depending on where they really wanted to get
to.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

I suspect the "American convention" would really give you
"Tottenham Court and Oxford", which might be a bit confusing :-}

If you want to use an American convention, call the station "Centrepoint
Station" after the landmark building on top of it.
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
|http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk or
|http://www.livejournal.com/users/chrishansenhome/

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Phil Clark wrote:

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.

Good point. A passer-by asked me the other day which way to Great
Western Road. I could have given them three convenient routes from
where we were standing, depending on where they really wanted to get
to.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

I suspect the "American convention" would really give you
"Tottenham Court and Oxford", which might be a bit confusing :-}

There are several Métro stations in Paris named in just that way, for
example Strasbourg St-Denis at the junction of the Boulevard de
Strasbourg and the Boulevard St-Denis, which I doubt if many people
confuse with the towns of Strasbourg or St-Denis.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:39:07 GMT, Phil Clark wrote:

I often used to call
various shop branches the "Tottenham Court Road branch" even though most
were on the other three roads that intersect at the crossroads the station
is on.

"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.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

I've always thought there's a sort of implicit "Central Line &
Tottenham Court Road".

The H&C between Liverpool Street and Hammersmith has almost all of its
stations named (at least in the original names, though some have
changed over time) after the road it happens to be crossing at that
point.

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.

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.)

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.)

What's the main problem? An interchange between the Northern Line Charing X
branch and the Met would no end of help.

asdf wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:39:07 GMT, Phil Clark wrote:

I often used to call
various shop branches the "Tottenham Court Road branch" even though most
were on the other three roads that intersect at the crossroads the station
is on.
"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.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

I've always thought there's a sort of implicit "Central Line &
Tottenham Court Road".

The H&C between Liverpool Street and Hammersmith has almost all of its
stations named (at least in the original names, though some have
changed over time) after the road it happens to be crossing at that
point.

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.

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.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London