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.

Roy Stilling wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote:

I know this is a bit of an old chestnut, but having sifted through a
few previous discussions here on Google Groups I'm still a little
unclear on what the ticketing rules are. I'm hoping the oracles of this
ng might be able to offer clarification.

There are posters at Farringdon that say that "London Terminals"
tickets are not valid there.

It seems a bit late telling the passengers that when they're already
there!

I noticed some ticket machines were altered to display the individual
names of terminals instead of "London Terminals" after passengers turned
up at Kings Cross Thameslink pointing out that Kings Cross is a London
terminal...

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

In message .com,
Mizter T writes

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.

I think that is probably true, but the name also associated the station
with the historic Greenwich ferry, which was subsequently purchased by
the railway (the foot tunnel came much later - opened in 1902).

On pre-railway maps the area was almost always labelled The Isle of Dogs
(a rather less attractive name for a terminus, and geographically not
very specific). On later maps, "North Greenwich" tended to be restricted
to the station name, the surrounding area being labelled Cubitt Town as
you mentioned.

However I'm unsure of the pedigree of the name 'North Greenwich' for
that peninsula, though I'm also unsure of the pedigree of the
'Greenwich Peninsula' name (perhaps it was in use by those on the river
though).

Describing the peninsula as "North Greenwich" is a modern invention.
Historically the northernmost part was known as Bugsby's Marshes (and
the bend in the river as Bugsby's Reach) - labels still in use on
Bartholomew's 1961 London Reference Atlas. The southern part was called
"Greenwich Marsh".

"East Greenwich" seems to have appeared in the 1880s, with the arrival
of the gas works, but doesn't seem to have been in widespread use to
describe the peninsula - it is more commonly used to describe the area
just to the south, around Westcombe Park.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:

In message .com,
Mizter T writes

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.

I think that is probably true, but the name also associated the station
with the historic Greenwich ferry, which was subsequently purchased by
the railway (the foot tunnel came much later - opened in 1902).

On pre-railway maps the area was almost always labelled The Isle of Dogs
(a rather less attractive name for a terminus, and geographically not
very specific). On later maps, "North Greenwich" tended to be restricted
to the station name, the surrounding area being labelled Cubitt Town as
you mentioned.

However I'm unsure of the pedigree of the name 'North Greenwich' for
that peninsula, though I'm also unsure of the pedigree of the
'Greenwich Peninsula' name (perhaps it was in use by those on the river
though).

Describing the peninsula as "North Greenwich" is a modern invention.
Historically the northernmost part was known as Bugsby's Marshes (and
the bend in the river as Bugsby's Reach) - labels still in use on
Bartholomew's 1961 London Reference Atlas. The southern part was called
"Greenwich Marsh".

"East Greenwich" seems to have appeared in the 1880s, with the arrival
of the gas works, but doesn't seem to have been in widespread use to
describe the peninsula - it is more commonly used to describe the area
just to the south, around Westcombe Park.


Thanks Paul for adding some concrete info to my blind speculation. The
place names of Bugsby's Marsh and Greenwich Marsh were never going to
feature highly in the regeneration of the peninsula! "Greenwich
Peninsula" is the name adopted by English Partnerships [1], the
government agency overseeing the areas regeneration.

It'll be interesting to see which name - "North Greenwich" or
"Greenwich Peninsula" sticks more. Having the local Tube station named
North Greenwich will certainly prompt many people to refer to the area
as such. Perhaps the two names will co-exist.

On a slightly related note it's interesting to see the emergency of the
new place name "Canada Water", an area many would formerly have called
Rotherhithe. The Canada Water name was around before the coming of the
Jubilee line, but I'm sure the naming of the new interchange as such
has helped to popularise it further.

Plus whilst locals would I believe have considered what is now Canada
Water part of Rotherhithe and referred to it as such, there are lots of
new residents (as there are lots of new housing) who seem to favour
using the new name.


[1] http://www.greenwichpeninsula.co.uk/

"Mizter T" wrote

On a slightly related note it's interesting to see the emergency of the
new place name "Canada Water", an area many would formerly have called
Rotherhithe. The Canada Water name was around before the coming of the
Jubilee line, but I'm sure the naming of the new interchange as such
has helped to popularise it further.

Plus whilst locals would I believe have considered what is now Canada
Water part of Rotherhithe and referred to it as such, there are lots of
new residents (as there are lots of new housing) who seem to favour
using the new name.

The area now known as Canada Water used to be Canada Dock - but no-one lived
there when the dock was there. The ancient place name for the area was
Redriff, though that name must have disappeared when the area was given over
to the Surrey Commercial Docks.

Peter

In article ,
(Peter Goodland) wrote:

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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Peter Masson) wrote:

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 thought North Woolwich was once South of the river. I.e. the river has
moved over the centuries in this area.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article om,
(Paul Oter) wrote:

I didn't ask for a U1 ticket partly because I suspected that it
might be more expensive and partly because I was carrying a Annual Gold
Card and know that you don't get a GOLDC discount on the LU element of
such fares.

Huh? I get Network Card discounts on Day Travelcards and fares to
Underground destinations from Cambridge.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes

I thought North Woolwich was once South of the river. I.e. the river has
moved over the centuries in this area.

As far as recorded names are concerned, the explanation is quite simple
- North Woolwich was a manor granted to William the Conqueror's henchman
Hamon, Sheriff of Kent, and was thus recorded in the Domesday Book (and
ever since until modern times) as a detached part of Kent.

--
Paul Terry