| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
London Terminals and Thameslink
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. (1) A ticket from Herne Hill (south London) to London Terminals is obviously valid to Blackfriars, am I correct in saying it's valid to City Thameslink as well? I presume it's not valid any further north than that. (2) For travel from Herne Hill to Farringdon or Kings Cross Thameslink presumably a ticket is issued with either of those specific destinations named, is this the case? (3) When travelling from the north of the Thameslink route (say Cricklewood) into central London, are tickets issued to 'London Terminals' or to specific named stations (e.g. Kings Cross Thameslink / City Thameslink)? And if a passenger is coming from Luton on a ticket with the destination 'London Terminals' can they go any further south on the Thameslink route than Kings Cross Thameslink? (4) 'London Thameslink' was mentioned in previous posts as a destination - does this mean anything, or was it just a virtual destination used for some reason solely during the Thameslink blockade? If anyone can throw some light on this it'd be much appreciated. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
On 5 Jul 2006 08:23:45 -0700, "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. I'm probably way out of date but here goes. (1) A ticket from Herne Hill (south London) to London Terminals is obviously valid to Blackfriars, am I correct in saying it's valid to City Thameslink as well? I presume it's not valid any further north than that. I believe this is correct. (2) For travel from Herne Hill to Farringdon or Kings Cross Thameslink presumably a ticket is issued with either of those specific destinations named, is this the case? No it would be issued to U1 and would thus be valid to any LU station in Zone 1. (3) When travelling from the north of the Thameslink route (say Cricklewood) into central London, are tickets issued to 'London Terminals' or to specific named stations (e.g. Kings Cross Thameslink / City Thameslink)? To the specific named station once north of Kings Cross Thameslink. And if a passenger is coming from Luton on a ticket with the destination 'London Terminals' can they go any further south on the Thameslink route than Kings Cross Thameslink? No they cannot except on peak trains to Moorgate - I think! (4) 'London Thameslink' was mentioned in previous posts as a destination - does this mean anything, or was it just a virtual destination used for some reason solely during the Thameslink blockade? No idea at all. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
London Terminals and Thameslink
On 5 Jul 2006 08:23:45 -0700, 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. Some of your questions are answered on page A5 of the NFM: http://www.atoc.org/retail/_downloads/NFM/sectiona.pdf Basically, a ticket to London Terminals is not valid for journeys to or via Farringdon. The appropriate ticket for journeys to or via Farringdon depends on where you're travelling to, where you're travelling from, and whether it's a season or a single/return. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Thanks v much for your answers Paul. I've highlighted a possible
confusion below... Paul Corfield wrote: On 5 Jul 2006 08:23:45 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote: (snip) (2) For travel from Herne Hill to Farringdon or Kings Cross Thameslink presumably a ticket is issued with either of those specific destinations named, is this the case? No it would be issued to U1 and would thus be valid to any LU station in Zone 1. (3) When travelling from the north of the Thameslink route (say Cricklewood) into central London, are tickets issued to 'London Terminals' or to specific named stations (e.g. Kings Cross Thameslink / City Thameslink)? To the specific named station once north of Kings Cross Thameslink. I think there's a bit of confusion here - for this third query I was wondering what happens when travelling *from* north London / north of London to central London - .e.g. for a Cricklewood to KX Thameslink journey would the ticket issued be to the destination 'London Terminals'. Presumably if the journey was Cricklewood to Farringdon or City Thameslink the ticket would be issued to U1 - I wonder if this would also be the case if their destination was Blackfriars or Elephant & Castle? |
London Terminals and Thameslink
On 5 Jul 2006 08:23:45 -0700, "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. (1) A ticket from Herne Hill (south London) to London Terminals is obviously valid to Blackfriars, am I correct in saying it's valid to City Thameslink as well? I presume it's not valid any further north than that. Correct, (2) For travel from Herne Hill to Farringdon or Kings Cross Thameslink presumably a ticket is issued with either of those specific destinations named, is this the case? (see 3) (3) When travelling from the north of the Thameslink route (say Cricklewood) into central London, are tickets issued to 'London Terminals' or to specific named stations (e.g. Kings Cross Thameslink / City Thameslink)? Dunno about stations inside the LU zones. And if a passenger is coming from Luton on a ticket with the destination 'London Terminals' can they go any further south on the Thameslink route than Kings Cross Thameslink? No. (See special notice at Farringdon about this.) (4) 'London Thameslink' was mentioned in previous posts as a destination - does this mean anything, or was it just a virtual destination used for some reason solely during the Thameslink blockade? London Thameslink is still used and means any TL station as far as London Bridge/ Elephant. (And also I believe Waterloo/Charing Cross via LB.) Some ticket machines only offer this and not the individual stations which can be puzzling. If anyone can throw some light on this it'd be much appreciated. PS I once needed and got a ticket from Kings Cross TL to Farringdon. It was cheaper than the Underground and railcard discount was applied. Can't remember what it said though! Ticket offices sometimes sell you a zonal ticket when there is a cheaper non-Underground version available; worth checking for this, -- Peter Lawrence |
London Terminals and Thameslink
asdf wrote:
Some of your questions are answered on page A5 of the NFM: http://www.atoc.org/retail/_downloads/NFM/sectiona.pdf Basically, a ticket to London Terminals is not valid for journeys to or via Farringdon. The appropriate ticket for journeys to or via Farringdon depends on where you're travelling to, where you're travelling from, and whether it's a season or a single/return. Thanks for that, as far as I can see page A5 answers nearly all my questions (though it doesn't entirely answer question (2)). For the record I'll provide the answer to my own queries (quoted text is from my original post)... (1) A ticket from Herne Hill (south London) to London Terminals is obviously valid to Blackfriars, am I correct in saying it's valid to City Thameslink as well? I presume it's not valid any further north than that. Any ticket from the south to London Terminals is valid as far as City Thameslink and no further. (2) For travel from Herne Hill to Farringdon or Kings Cross Thameslink presumably a ticket is issued with either of those specific destinations named, is this the case? For a journey to Farringdon the NFM says "where possible use specific fares from Section B2 or C" - i.e. it would be issued to 'Farringdon Und'. The NFM doesn't specifically say what to do if such a fare is unavailable but on reading other information on the page I presume a ticket to U1 would be issued. The NFM does not specify what ticket would be issued for journeys from the south to Kings Cross Thameslink - I'd be interested to know if it would be issued to KX Thameslink specifically or just to U1. Does anyone know for sure? (3) When travelling from the north of the Thameslink route (say Cricklewood) into central London, are tickets issued to 'London Terminals' or to specific named stations (e.g. Kings Cross Thameslink / City Thameslink)? "From stations between Bedford and West Hampstead Thameslink inclusive, tickets (other than Season Tickets) are available to London Thameslink (NLC 4452) and such tickets are valid to ALL the stations on the map." (The stations on the map are KX Thameslink, Farringdon, Barbican, Moorgate, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, London Bridge and Elephant & Castle.) "Season tickets from stations between Bedford and West Hampstead Thameslink inclusive must be issued to the customer's chosen named station, e.g. King's Cross Thameslink, Farringdon Und, Moorgate Und, London Bridge." And if a passenger is coming from Luton on a ticket with the destination 'London Terminals' can they go any further south on the Thameslink route than Kings Cross Thameslink? No, KX Thameslink is as far as they could go. Passengers who want to go to the central London Thameslink stations would be sold a ticket to 'London Thameslink' as detailed above. (4) 'London Thameslink' was mentioned in previous posts as a destination - does this mean anything, or was it just a virtual destination used for some reason solely during the Thameslink blockade? Yes it means something - see the answer to question (3) above. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Mizter T wrote:
The NFM does not specify what ticket would be issued for journeys from the south to Kings Cross Thameslink - I'd be interested to know if it would be issued to KX Thameslink specifically or just to U1. Does anyone know for sure? At Gatwick Airport recently I purchased a single to King's Cross Thameslink. The ticket stated that KXTL was the destination, and it bore the words "Route Thameslink". PaulO |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Southern seem to have not read these instructions on the ATOC page, as
I have numerous problems with this issue. I travel from Brockley (South London, near New Cross) to Kings Cross Thameslink. A return fare for KXT costs £1.60, the same as a return to London Terminals (that's with railcard discount). Herein lies the problem. If you go to the ticket machine, and request a KXT ticket, you'll be confronted with two options - KXT, or KXT (not via Underground). Both of these cost £1.60. I generally choose the first one (as it implies you can go via Underground... is that true?). However, when it prints this ticket, it prints out a London Terminals ticket. If you do choose the not via Underground ticket, you do get a KXT ticket. Sometimes I go from New Cross, or St Johns, both on South Eastern, rather than Southern. Their price for KXT is different (15p more than London Terminals), and therefore it doesn't have the problem of printing the London Terminals ticket. I assume the problem is that Southern haven't programmed their ticketing system properly, which is why I get a ticket for London Terminals. Fortunately, the gates at KXT will more or less let anything through, shown by my getting through once despite having put my return ticket in rather than my out part! |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Thanks for your reply Peter...
Peter Lawrence wrote: On 5 Jul 2006 08:23:45 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote: (snip) And if a passenger is coming from Luton on a ticket with the destination 'London Terminals' can they go any further south on the Thameslink route than Kings Cross Thameslink? No. (See special notice at Farringdon about this.) Doh! Not a great place for such a notice as once a passenger's got to Farringdon it's a bit too late - they're already one stop further south than they should be! (4) 'London Thameslink' was mentioned in previous posts as a destination - does this mean anything, or was it just a virtual destination used for some reason solely during the Thameslink blockade? London Thameslink is still used and means any TL station as far as London Bridge/ Elephant. (And also I believe Waterloo/Charing Cross via LB.) Some ticket machines only offer this and not the individual stations which can be puzzling. As I've since discovered (courtesy of consulting the NFM) 'London Thameslink' tickets are only issued from stations on the north of the route, and as you say are valid as far as London Bridge/E&C. I'm surprised that a 'London Thameslink' ticket would also be valid to Waterloo East or Charing Cross (via LB), I suppose I can see a certain logic in it but nothing like that is mentioned in the NFM. It'd be great of anyone could confirm/deny that for certain. PS I once needed and got a ticket from Kings Cross TL to Farringdon. It was cheaper than the Underground and railcard discount was applied. Can't remember what it said though! Interesting, I would've expected that the ticket for that journey would be a U1 underground fare but it seems there are Thameslink only fares as well. The Trainline (unhelpfully) quotes both £1.50 and £2.40 for a KX Thameslink - Farringdon single, but after querying The Trainline a bit more it seems that the single fare for any Thameslink journey for the central section from KX Thameslink through to Elephant & Castle/ London Bridge is £1.50 single (£1 w/railcard) and £3.00 return (£1.50 w/railcard). So, a Thameslink single is cheaper than the £3 tube cash single and the same price as the Oyster single fare (£1.50), and even cheaper with a railcard. I bet you can't buy the Thameslink-only fare from the LU ticket office at Farringdon though! Ticket offices sometimes sell you a zonal ticket when there is a cheaper non-Underground version available; worth checking for this. Quite. The received wisdom appears to be that any Thameslink journey that passes Farringdon requires a zonal ticket to U1, but this received wisdom also appears to be wrong. Whilst, as the NFM says, "some special rules apply" to Thameslink fares for journeys in the central section, it's not simply a case that LU fares apply there instead of National Rail fares - i.e. it's not that special a special case! I can quite understand how this received wisdom took hold though - it's a simple and concise rule of thumb in a world of complex fare structures! Nontheless it is mistaken. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
SamB wrote:
Southern seem to have not read these instructions on the ATOC page, as I have numerous problems with this issue. I travel from Brockley (South London, near New Cross) to Kings Cross Thameslink. A return fare for KXT costs £1.60, the same as a return to London Terminals (that's with railcard discount). Herein lies the problem. If you go to the ticket machine, and request a KXT ticket, you'll be confronted with two options - KXT, or KXT (not via Underground). Both of these cost £1.60. I generally choose the first one (as it implies you can go via Underground... is that true?). However, when it prints this ticket, it prints out a London Terminals ticket. If you do choose the not via Underground ticket, you do get a KXT ticket. Sometimes I go from New Cross, or St Johns, both on South Eastern, rather than Southern. Their price for KXT is different (15p more than London Terminals), and therefore it doesn't have the problem of printing the London Terminals ticket. I assume the problem is that Southern haven't programmed their ticketing system properly, which is why I get a ticket for London Terminals. Fortunately, the gates at KXT will more or less let anything through, shown by my getting through once despite having put my return ticket in rather than my out part! Interesting. My initial reaction, from having heard similar tales from other people, is that you'd be correct in saying Southern have made a mess of programming their ticket machines. Doesn't really give one an awful lot of confidence that they'll spew out the right ticket does it?! I guess you could always write to Southern about this, whether your comments will reach anyone who's got any responsability for this is another thing! It's also interesting to hear the gates at KX Thameslink don't appear to be very discriminating. I guess it's possible that either: (a) whilst your ticket has the destination printed as London Terminals, the magnetic strip is coded correctly, though this does seem unlikely; (b) the gates at KX Thameslink accept 'London Terminals' tickets as they are valid for journeys to there from points north on the Thameslink route. It's still somewhat bizarre that the gates accepted your return rather than your outbound ticket, just as well it gave it back to you. To be fair I suppose that thet KX Thameslink gates have to accept several different ticket types so perhaps it's just good sense that they're not too discriminating. That said, a ticket is either valid or it isn't. But of course in your case you've been sold a ticket that was advertised as being valid though it seemingly isn't, so it's just as well you're let through the gates! |
London Terminals and Thameslink
(3) When travelling from the north of the Thameslink route (say
Cricklewood) into central London, are tickets issued to 'London Terminals' or to specific named stations (e.g. Kings Cross Thameslink / City Thameslink)? To the specific named station once north of Kings Cross Thameslink. I think there's a bit of confusion here - for this third query I was wondering what happens when travelling *from* north London / north of London to central London - .e.g. for a Cricklewood to KX Thameslink journey would the ticket issued be to the destination 'London Terminals'. Presumably if the journey was Cricklewood to Farringdon or City Thameslink the ticket would be issued to U1 - I wonder if this would also be the case if their destination was Blackfriars or Elephant & Castle? From stations north of London on the Thameslink route, tickets are issued to 'London Terminals' for St. Pancras and Kings Cross Thameslink and to 'London Thameslink' for Farringdon, Barbican, Moorgate, City Thameslink, Blackfriars and London Bridge. 'London Thameslink' tickets are for Thameslink (FCC) only and not valid on the tube. For destinations in zone 1, tickets are issued to U12 to allow interchange at West Hampstead. 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. -- Peter |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Paul Oter wrote:
Mizter T wrote: The NFM does not specify what ticket would be issued for journeys from the south to Kings Cross Thameslink - I'd be interested to know if it would be issued to KX Thameslink specifically or just to U1. Does anyone know for sure? At Gatwick Airport recently I purchased a single to King's Cross Thameslink. The ticket stated that KXTL was the destination, and it bore the words "Route Thameslink". Thanks - that pretty much clears everything up with regards to this query. KX Thameslink is a specific destination, the problem seems to be that some ticket offices don't realise this and will sell passengers a U1 ticket instead. I think the 'Route Thameslink' wording might actually relate to your ticket being an operator-specific ticket - i.e. between London and Gatwick I believe there are several tickets available - FCC/Thameslink only, an any permitted route ticket for any trains, a Southern only ticket, a Gatwick Express only ticket - I'm a bit hazy with regards to this to be honest. Anyway as you were obviously going to be travelling on Thameslink to get to Kings Cross, and there'd be no benefit in you going up to London Bridge on a Southern train and changing - as all the Thameslink trains that stop at LB will have previously stopped at Gatwick - you were quite reasonably sold an FCC/Thameslink-only ticket. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Mizter T wrote:
Paul Oter wrote: Mizter T wrote: The NFM does not specify what ticket would be issued for journeys from the south to Kings Cross Thameslink - I'd be interested to know if it would be issued to KX Thameslink specifically or just to U1. Does anyone know for sure? At Gatwick Airport recently I purchased a single to King's Cross Thameslink. The ticket stated that KXTL was the destination, and it bore the words "Route Thameslink". I think the 'Route Thameslink' wording might actually relate to your ticket being an operator-specific ticket - i.e. between London and Gatwick I believe there are several tickets available - FCC/Thameslink only, an any permitted route ticket for any trains, a Southern only ticket, a Gatwick Express only ticket - I'm a bit hazy with regards to this to be honest. Yes, I assumed it was valid on TL (FCC) trains only, and I couldn't have used a Southern train for the Gatwick - East Croydon section even though this is on the Thameslink route. Though the use of the word "route" does make this a bit ambiguous - is this a reference to the route or the operator? Anyway as you were obviously going to be travelling on Thameslink to get to Kings Cross, and there'd be no benefit in you going up to London Bridge on a Southern train and changing - as all the Thameslink trains that stop at LB will have previously stopped at Gatwick - you were quite reasonably sold an FCC/Thameslink-only ticket. I bought the ticket from a machine at Gatwick, specifying KXTL as the destination. 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. PaulO |
London Terminals and Thameslink
Peter Lawrence wrote: On 5 Jul 2006 08:23:45 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote: Ticket offices sometimes sell you a zonal ticket when there is a cheaper non-Underground version available; worth checking for this, Equally, they'll sometimes do the opposite! Like the time I was sold a ticket only valid on "The Other Railway" from one of the Greenwich stations to Vauxhall. You can get there without going on the underground, but it's tortuous and takes about twice as long, so I wound up having to buy a zonal ticket in addition! I suppose there is always the possibility the ticket was valid to go on the underground, but I think it unlikely. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
|
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
asdf wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 07:44:14 -0700, wrote: Ticket offices sometimes sell you a zonal ticket when there is a cheaper non-Underground version available; worth checking for this, Equally, they'll sometimes do the opposite! Like the time I was sold a ticket only valid on "The Other Railway" from one of the Greenwich stations to Vauxhall. (How many Greenwich stations are there?) At a quick count, four: Greenwich station (NR and DLR); Cutty Sark (DLR); and North Greenwich (Jubilee Line); and Maze Hill (NR) which is in East Greenwich. Though the only place you'd be sold a NR ticket to Vauxhall would be Greenwich station proper. 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]. This mirrors the north-of-the-river naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper. However the area name of North Woolwich seems to have stuck - well, it's used on streetmaps at least, I haven't spoken to anyone local to the area, whilst I've no idea if anyone ever called the area on the south of the Isle of Dogs "North Greenwich" apart from the railway. No one calls the area that now, I'm (almost) certain of that. Meanwhile the Greenwich Peninsula appears to be the name is use - above ground at least - for the area around the Dome, and I think this is what people called it before the coming of the Dome and the Jubilee line too. This is really a local history question, but it definitely has a railway/transport angle. You can get there without going on the underground, but it's tortuous and takes about twice as long, so I wound up having to buy a zonal ticket in addition! Did you spot the NR-only route via Waterloo East and Waterloo? It's probably quicker than any route involving the Underground. Yeah, I'm certain that's quicker than any other route. The routes via overground *and* the Tube are the more tortuous - I guess you'd go to London Bridge and take the Jubilee to Green Park, then the Victoria to Vauxhall, alternatively from London Bridge you'd go southbound on the Northern to Stockwell and change to the Victoria northbound to Vauxhall. Definitely a longer route than Greenwich to Waterloo East (with a possible change at London Bridge), then Waterloo proper to Vauxhall. |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
Mizter T wrote:
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]. This mirrors the north-of-the-river naming of North Woolwich, across the Thames from Woolwich proper. Argh - I forgot the footnote... [1] http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ch/index.shtml I also made a complete hash of modifying the subject line, I'll leave it be rather than creating more of a mess. Apologies. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
"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. -- Roy |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
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. |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
"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. Peter |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
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). |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
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. |
London Terminals and Thameslink
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 |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
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 |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
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/ |
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich to Vauxhall
"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 |
London Terminals and Thameslink
|
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich
|
London Terminals and Thameslink
|
London Terminals and Thameslink North Greenwich + Quickest route Greenwich
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 |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
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". |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and 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. |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote: [snip interesting discussion of tube station names] 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. This made me think of Whitechapel Art Gallery, which is almost next door to Aldgate East tube station. I'm told that first-timers often arrive at Whitechapel tube only to discover that they've got off at the wrong station... Mercifully I've yet to hear someone call an area "City Thameslink". Which shows just how inappropriate a name this is. For a start, there are several other Thameslink stations in the City. PaulO |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminalsand Thameslink)
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 :-} |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
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.) |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
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. |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
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/ |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
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) |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
Paul Oter wrote:
Mercifully I've yet to hear someone call an area "City Thameslink". Which shows just how inappropriate a name this is. For a start, there are several other Thameslink stations in the City. I still think it should be called Holborn Viaducked. |
North Greenwich and the naming of stations (was London Terminals and Thameslink)
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
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! Isn't it in Somers Town? I noticed recently that before the 1960s, Hampstead Garden Suburb was half in the Middlesex borough of Finchley and half in the Middlesex borough of Hendon. None of it was in the London borough of Hampstead, in fact it almost seemed to end at the Hampstead border. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk