Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what was
wrong with that name?

Chris

"Chris Read" wrote in message
...

Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what was
wrong with that name?

It's named after the dock that (used to be/is) there

tim

"Chris Read" wrote in message
...

Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what
was wrong with that name?

King George V DLR station was opened a year before North Woolwich closed
so to call them both North Woolwich would have been rather confusing.

Peter Smyth

On 20 Dec, 22:21, "tim....." wrote:

"Chris Read" wrote:

Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what was
wrong with that name?

It's named after the dock that (used to be/is) there


It very much is still there! It's one of the "Royals", and the DLR
station almost right next to it - however you can't get up to the
water's edge, though I think there may be a development in the
pipeline here that would change that... although a quick shufti at LB
Newham's planning website hasn't shone any light on that.

I say it very much is still there - but not all of it! A little bit of
the dock to the west was filled in to provide some land on which to
build the terminal buildings for City Airport - though AFAICS it
really is only a little bit. Said airport has its runway on the former
wharf between Albert Dock and King George V Dock.

This map shows that I'm not just making it all up:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/oldmap.sr...&y=180250&ar=N
(click on 'larger map' under the mapping to, er, get a larger map)

More information on King George V from the fab Port Cities website:
http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/...ge-V-Dock.html

By the by, traditionally speaking North Woolwich was actually a part
of Kent, but I won't get in to that now!

On Dec 20, 10:44 pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Chris Read" wrote in message

...



Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what
was wrong with that name?

King George V DLR station was opened a year before North Woolwich closed
so to call them both North Woolwich would have been rather confusing.

I don't see why. There are plenty of other examples of 2 seperate
stations having the same name - canary wharf for example. King George
V to me seems rather a daft name as I suspect most people using the
station want to travel to north woolwich, not the dock itself.

B2003

wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 10:44 pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Chris Read" wrote in message

...



Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what
was wrong with that name?

King George V DLR station was opened a year before North Woolwich closed
so to call them both North Woolwich would have been rather confusing.

I don't see why. There are plenty of other examples of 2 seperate
stations having the same name - canary wharf for example.

Yes, and most of them cause confusion.

King George V to me seems rather a daft name as I suspect most people
using the station want to travel to north woolwich, not the dock itself.

North Woolwich is itself rather a daft name. It sounds like the northern
part of Woolwich, but it's separated from Woolwich by a sodding great tidal
river with no road access. To have "North Woolwich" and "Woolwich Arsenal"
as adjacent stations on the same line but on different sides of the river
was perhaps thought to be too prone to confusion. East Silvertown would
have been more logical, but prosaic. King George V has a nice ring of
history about it.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On 22 Dec, 14:35, "Richard J." wrote:

wrote:

On Dec 20, 10:44 pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Chris Read" wrote:

Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what
was wrong with that name?

King George V DLR station was opened a year before North Woolwich
closed so to call them both North Woolwich would have been rather
confusing.

I don't see why. There are plenty of other examples of 2 seperate
stations having the same name - canary wharf for example.

Yes, and most of them cause confusion.

I'm not sure you can consider that a hard and fast rule, but yes they
certainly provide the potential for confusion.


King George V to me seems rather a daft name as I suspect most people
using the station want to travel to north woolwich, not the dock itself.

North Woolwich is itself rather a daft name. It sounds like the northern
part of Woolwich, [...]

Which it really was, until 1965! Well, it was the northern part of the
Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich at least. And part of the county of
Kent to boot. You've Billy the Conqueror and his mate Hamon to thank
for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Woolwich


[...] but it's separated from Woolwich by a sodding great tidal
river with no road access. [...]

Though it's the location of the northern end of a long established
ferry route, and there's been with a free ferry service across the
river since 1889.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolwich_Ferry


[...] To have "North Woolwich" and "Woolwich Arsenal"
as adjacent stations on the same line but on different sides of the river
was perhaps thought to be too prone to confusion. [...]

I think that's a very strong argument, and likely to be a major part
of the rationale for the naming of the station as King George V as
opposed to North Woolwich.


[...] East Silvertown would have been more logical, but prosaic. [...]

No, it wouldn't have been more logical because it's simply not in
Silvertown, it is in North Woolwich. Bear in mind that until 44 years
ago this seperate identity would have been very distinctive - one
would have passed from the County Borough of West Ham in the county of
Essex to the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich in the county of Kent.

I'm not sure exactly where that line would have been drawn along
Albert Road, but that line marks the quite distinct boundary line of
where lies Silvertown and where lies North Woolwich.


King George V has a nice ring of history about it.

Indeed so, much like many other DLR stations hark back to the days of
the working docks.

Mizter T wrote:
On 22 Dec, 14:35, "Richard J." wrote:

King George V has a nice ring of history about it.

Indeed so, much like many other DLR stations hark back to the days of
the working docks.

Well it is the Docklands Light Railway, so having stations named after the
actual docks does make sense!

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:12:40 -0800 (PST), Mizter T wrote:

Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what
was wrong with that name?

King George V DLR station was opened a year before North Woolwich
closed so to call them both North Woolwich would have been rather
confusing.

I don't see why. There are plenty of other examples of 2 seperate
stations having the same name - canary wharf for example.

Yes, and most of them cause confusion.

I'm not sure you can consider that a hard and fast rule, but yes they
certainly provide the potential for confusion.

....although this case is slightly different, as the stations (mostly)
aren't both in existence at the same time.

In message
,
Mizter T writes
No, it wouldn't have been more logical because it's simply not in
Silvertown, it is in North Woolwich. Bear in mind that until 44 years
ago this seperate identity would have been very distinctive - one would
have passed from the County Borough of West Ham in the county of Essex
to the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich in the county of Kent.

Very minor correction:

The Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich was in the County of London, not
Kent. It was in Kent before the creation of the County of London in 1889
but was then simply a parish. Only the County of London's subdivisions
were given the prefix "Metropolitan Borough of.......), a term which
fell out of use with the coming of Greater London in 1965.

(The term Metropolitan Borough was of course resurrected in 1974 for the
subdivisions of the new Metropolitan counties outside London.)

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk