In message , JNugent
writes

There used to be a NE area (I have seen historical evidence of it,
around Tottenham, IIRC), but it doesn't exist today.

The NE division was subsumed into the E area in 1866. There was also an
S division, which was re-distributed between SE and SW in 1868. Both of
these changes were recommended by Anthony Trollope (the novelist) who
worked as surveyor to the Post Office.

--
Paul Terry

"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...

If by that you mean it has an SW postcode, you must be one of the very
few people to regard Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, 10 Downing
Street, and Whitehall as being in South London.

Well, they're all south of the centre - which I think is usually taken to
be Charing Cross - so that makes it 'south London' as far as I'm
concerned. Each to their own description...

Ian

Adrian wrote:
JNugent ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :


(indeed, there is no "S" postal area, even though "E", "N" and "W"
exist)


There most certainly is. I grew up in S17.


Really? Where is it?


Sheffield.


Doesn't it also have either an SE or a SW postcode?


No. It's really quite a long way north of the Thames. About 150 miles.


You'll be claiming there's no NE postal area next, despite there
being SE, SW, N and NW...


There used to be a NE area (I have seen historical evidence of it,
around Tottenham, IIRC), but it doesn't exist today.


Yes, it does. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

OK.

It may still be possible to see street signs (around Tottenham) with "NE"
appended to the street name.

Brimstone wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Brimstone wrote:


Richard J. wrote:

Ian F. wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

Brompton isn't in South London.

Yes it is. It's in south-west London.

If by that you mean it has an SW postcode, you must be one of the
very few people to regard Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, 10
Downing Street, and Whitehall as being in South London.

AFAIK the usual definition is that given in Wikipedia: "South London
... is the entire area of Greater London south of the River Thames".

Since it can be added to by absolutely anyone, Wikipedia is hardly
to be regarded as an authoritative source.

That is true.

However, on this occasion and on this topic, whoever provided the
definition of "South London" was absolutely correct. Whilst there is
no formal definition of "South London" (indeed, there is no "S"
postal area, even though "E", "N" and "W" exist), everyone recognises
the term to mean London south of the Thames. Brompton is not in South
London, any more than is Chelsea, Piccadilly Circus or the Science
Museum (all in "London SW").


But in the part you very assiduously snipped, I mentioned that the Post
Office has it's own ideas about what towns etc fall within what postal
areas. Hence Aberystwyth has a Shrewsbury postcode, the Isle of Skye falls
within Inverness and Boston is supposedly somewhere within the influence of
Peterborough.

Thus what the Post Office considers to be the limits of south-west London
and what the rest of the world considers them to be are not necessarily the
same thing.

Exactly.

Apologies if I prevented that conclusion being reached sooner.

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , JNugent
writes

There used to be a NE area (I have seen historical evidence of it,
around Tottenham, IIRC), but it doesn't exist today.

The NE division was subsumed into the E area in 1866. There was also
an S division, which was re-distributed between SE and SW in 1868.
Both of these changes were recommended by Anthony Trollope (the
novelist) who worked as surveyor to the Post Office.

Leaving out SE28, which is a fairly modern creation, and SE1 and SW1, which
abut the EC/WC area, postcodes SE2-SE18 form a contiguous block within which
the 18 postcodes are approximately alphabetically arranged, and postcodes
SE19-SE27 form another contiguous block within which the 9 postcodes are
approximately alphabetically ordered. Similarly with SW2-SW10 and SW11-SW20.
Is this because SE19-SE27 and SW2-SW10 used to be part of the S zone?

There is nothing comparable in Northeast London, since the postcodes within
the N zone are ordered as a single alphabetical sequence, and so are those
in the E zone. However, the fact that E2 touches the EC/WC area has always
intriqued me, because otherwise the EC/WC area is completely encapsulated by
number 1 postcodes. Maybe what is now E2 used to be part of the NE zone?

In message , John Rowland
writes

Leaving out SE28, which is a fairly modern creation, and SE1 and SW1, which
abut the EC/WC area, postcodes SE2-SE18 form a contiguous block within which
the 18 postcodes are approximately alphabetically arranged, and postcodes
SE19-SE27 form another contiguous block within which the 9 postcodes are
approximately alphabetically ordered. Similarly with SW2-SW10 and SW11-SW20.
Is this because SE19-SE27 and SW2-SW10 used to be part of the S zone?

I don't think so, e3specially since the numbers weren't added until
nearly 60 years after districts NE and S had disappeared. SW2 (Brixton)
and SW4 (Clapham) were originally in the S district, but SW3 (Chelsea),
SW5 (Earls Court) and SW7 (South Kensington) were always in the SW
district.

Similarly, SE17 (Walworth) and SE5 (Camberwell) were both originally
part of the S district.

The double alphabetic sequences you mention look to me to have arisen
from numbering inner zones first and then adding a further alphabetic
sequence of outer zones.

Incidentally, as originally set up, the districts went right out to
Bexley, Cheam, Elstree and Barnet (i.e. almost as far as what is now the
M25) according to my 1857 map from the London Illustrated News.

There is nothing comparable in Northeast London, since the postcodes within
the N zone are ordered as a single alphabetical sequence, and so are those
in the E zone. However, the fact that E2 touches the EC/WC area has always
intriqued me, because otherwise the EC/WC area is completely encapsulated by
number 1 postcodes. Maybe what is now E2 used to be part of the NE zone?

It did indeed.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

Leaving out SE28, which is a fairly modern creation, and SE1 and
SW1, which abut the EC/WC area, postcodes SE2-SE18 form a contiguous
block within which the 18 postcodes are approximately alphabetically
arranged, and postcodes SE19-SE27 form another contiguous block
within which the 9 postcodes are approximately alphabetically
ordered. Similarly with SW2-SW10 and SW11-SW20. Is this because
SE19-SE27 and SW2-SW10 used to be part of the S zone?

I don't think so, e3specially since the numbers weren't added until
nearly 60 years after districts NE and S had disappeared. SW2
(Brixton) and SW4 (Clapham) were originally in the S district, but
SW3 (Chelsea), SW5 (Earls Court) and SW7 (South Kensington) were
always in the SW district.

Similarly, SE17 (Walworth) and SE5 (Camberwell) were both originally
part of the S district.

The double alphabetic sequences you mention look to me to have arisen
from numbering inner zones first and then adding a further alphabetic
sequence of outer zones.

Incidentally, as originally set up, the districts went right out to
Bexley, Cheam, Elstree and Barnet (i.e. almost as far as what is now
the M25) according to my 1857 map from the London Illustrated News.

There is nothing comparable in Northeast London, since the postcodes
within the N zone are ordered as a single alphabetical sequence, and
so are those in the E zone. However, the fact that E2 touches the
EC/WC area has always intriqued me, because otherwise the EC/WC area
is completely encapsulated by number 1 postcodes. Maybe what is now
E2 used to be part of the NE zone?

It did indeed.

An interesting paper
http://postalheritage.org.uk/researc...0introduced%22

--
The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it. -
Dudley Moore

Brimstone wrote:
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , John Rowland
writes


Leaving out SE28, which is a fairly modern creation, and SE1 and
SW1, which abut the EC/WC area, postcodes SE2-SE18 form a contiguous
block within which the 18 postcodes are approximately alphabetically
arranged, and postcodes SE19-SE27 form another contiguous block
within which the 9 postcodes are approximately alphabetically
ordered. Similarly with SW2-SW10 and SW11-SW20. Is this because
SE19-SE27 and SW2-SW10 used to be part of the S zone?

I don't think so, e3specially since the numbers weren't added until
nearly 60 years after districts NE and S had disappeared. SW2
(Brixton) and SW4 (Clapham) were originally in the S district, but
SW3 (Chelsea), SW5 (Earls Court) and SW7 (South Kensington) were
always in the SW district.

Similarly, SE17 (Walworth) and SE5 (Camberwell) were both originally
part of the S district.

The double alphabetic sequences you mention look to me to have arisen
from numbering inner zones first and then adding a further alphabetic
sequence of outer zones.

Incidentally, as originally set up, the districts went right out to
Bexley, Cheam, Elstree and Barnet (i.e. almost as far as what is now
the M25) according to my 1857 map from the London Illustrated News.


There is nothing comparable in Northeast London, since the postcodes
within the N zone are ordered as a single alphabetical sequence, and
so are those in the E zone. However, the fact that E2 touches the
EC/WC area has always intriqued me, because otherwise the EC/WC area
is completely encapsulated by number 1 postcodes. Maybe what is now
E2 used to be part of the NE zone?

It did indeed.

An interesting paper
http://postalheritage.org.uk/researc...0introduced%22

That's a good paper.

I love the bit about Liverpool being the first provincial town to be
divided into postal districts in 1864 (and it would have been a town rather
than a city at the time).

Although "North Liverpool", "South Liverpool" and "East Liverpool" are all
terms in common local parlance even today, my guess is that the "western"
district was rather damp. I have never heard anyone say "West Liverpool".
Perhaps it meant what was then the central area.

In article ,
says...
In message , Ian F.
writes

There's an oratory, a cemetery and a road all called Brompton, but I've
never heard anyone refer to an area called Brompton, and I've lived in
south London for over 50 years.

These days Brompton is more usually called "South Kensington", but
Brompton is a far older name, dating back to at least the 13th century.


For the record tickets issued from and to Gloucester Road were always
suffixed [Brompton] around the turn of last century.

The latest one I have was issued in 1923.

http://static.flickr.com/109/257801165_982ad639d1_m.jpg

Jim Brittin wrote:
In article ,
says...
In message , Ian F.
writes

There's an oratory, a cemetery and a road all called Brompton,
but I've never heard anyone refer to an area called Brompton, and
I've lived in south London for over 50 years.

These days Brompton is more usually called "South Kensington", but
Brompton is a far older name, dating back to at least the 13th
century.


For the record tickets issued from and to Gloucester Road were
always suffixed [Brompton] around the turn of last century.

The latest one I have was issued in 1923.

http://static.flickr.com/109/257801165_982ad639d1_m.jpg

The station was originally Brompton (Gloucester Road), and became just
Gloucester Road in 1907, soon after Brompton Road station on the
Piccadilly was opened in 1906.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)