In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

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.

It was in the County of London throughout its time in the Metropolitan
Borough of Woolwich.

I also thought it was movement of the course of the river that was more
responsible but there you go.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

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

Sort of. The 1974 creations are Metropolitan Districts in law, even though
most have the status of borough (and many the status of city).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

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

Sort of. The 1974 creations are Metropolitan Districts in law, even though
most have the status of borough (and many the status of city).

I *think* they all do now, actually. (I'm sure someone will now find a
MD that isn't!)

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

On Dec 22, 11:49 pm, wrote:
Sort of. The 1974 creations are Metropolitan Districts in law, even though
most have the status of borough (and many the status of city).

All, in fact, now. The last holdout was Sefton, which applied for
borough status
in 1975.

--
Abi

On 22 Dec, 21:13, Ian Jelf wrote:

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.)


Thank you very much Ian, I stand corrected - that was a rather shoddy
misconception on my part which in retrospect doesn't really make much
sense, given that the boundaries of Kent had significantly retrenched
a long time before the coming of Greater London in '65 when the County
of London was created in 1889.

UIVMM (always possible!) the County Borough of West Ham remained in
the County of Essex but, as a County Borough, was effectively a free
and independent agent outwith the boundaries of the County Council (as
was the later County Borough of *East* Ham). These County Boroughs are
interesting creations, being perhaps somewhat similar to the unitary
authorities of today - albeit these modern day creations perhaps lack
some of the drama that surrounded the inception of some of these
County Boroughs, what with the torrid political power struggles set
against a backdrop of growing urbanisation. Town versus country, we've
been here before!


ob-utl - the County Boroughs of both East and West Ham were both
squarely well within the realms of London Transport ever since the
LTPB's "special area" came into effect in 1933 - though the DLR was
transferred from LRT [1] ownership to that of the LDDC [2] in 1992
after operating problems had reached a crescendo, as central
government though the LDDC could be a more focused custodian of the
railway than the somewhat distracted LRT could manage at the time.

In actual fact I've found something a bit interesting here - I thought
that the DLR came straight back into LRT ownership when the LDDC
dissolved, but it seems that it was actually transferred to the
Sectretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(I.e. the now defunct 'super-department' that was the DETR) in March
1998, and only subsequently transferred to TfL shortly after the
creation of that body in July 2000 [3]. I had thought that the DLR had
been returned to LRT ownership in '98, or at least LRT 'control' -
perhaps it was in effect put under LRT control by the DETR during this
two year period.

I presume the period under DETR ownership was only ever intended to be
an interim measure, as the successful London referendum on the
creation of the GLA was shortly thereafter in May 1998, and the period
after that was spent preparing and readying the new mechanisms of
London governance (and arguing about the Tube PPP which the government
was pushing through!). Perhaps the DLR was a fairly autonomous agent
during this period - indeed the transfer of the DLR to away from LRT
to the LDDC was arguably for the best, as during this period the new
DLR management seems to have taken advantage of being freed from the
shackles of the somewhat dysfunctional LRT and forged a new and more
successful path.

Also this period brought with it the involvement of the private sector
- thankfully the dying Conservative government didn't simply privatise
and sell off the DLR in its entirety, instead the system remained in
public ownership [4] whilst instead the operational side of the
railway (both day to day running and maintenance of the infrastructure
- both trains and track) became the responsibility of a franchisee.
This approach seems to have been pretty successful, as it would appear
has the PFI model whereby extensions (starting with Lewisham, then
City Airport and now Woolwich) to the railway are built, owned and
maintained by an infrastructure concessionaire.

Anyway I've gone off on a tangent so I'll stop there. Ian Jelf will
doubtless be along to correct my mistakes in a moment!


-----
[1] LRT being London Regional Transport, the principal precursor body
to TfL, which was a statutory organisation under the ownership and
control of central government, albeit one with a certain degree of
operational independence (though this didn't help the fact that it was
under resourced, with central government never stumping up the money
it needed).

[2] LDDC history website - see 'change of ownership' under the section
concerning the DLR (section 7) in this monograph:
http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/transport/tranmon3.html

[3] Details garnered from written evidence submitted to the Commons
Select Committee on Transport by the DLR:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...78/378we56.htm

[4] "Docklands Light Railway Limited is a small organisation that owns
the assets of DLR. It is also responsible for planning the future
development of the railway [...]"
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/foi/2836.aspx

On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
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.

Only if you're a bit thick , especially if one of them is closed
anyway.

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

Umm , so a bit like north london and south london then?

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.

And means nothing to anyone.

B2003

wrote:
On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
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.

Only if you're a bit thick , especially if one of them is closed
anyway.

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

Umm , so a bit like north london and south london then?

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.

And means nothing to anyone.

Unless you are going to be visiting the new King George Dock waterside
developments (when they are finished) that is! :-)

wrote in message
...
On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
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.

Only if you're a bit thick , especially if one of them is closed
anyway.

Having suffered the fate of once going to Pollokshaws instead of
Pollokshields (or the reverse), I'm sure that one doesn't need to be thick
to, for example, go to the wrong Shepherd's Bush. It just takes some lack
of attention.

tim

In message
,
Mizter T writes

On 22 Dec, 21:13, Ian Jelf wrote:

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.)


Thank you very much Ian,

You're welcome! :-)


I stand corrected -

As I said, a very minor correction.


that was a rather shoddy
misconception on my part which in retrospect doesn't really make much
sense, given that the boundaries of Kent had significantly retrenched
a long time before the coming of Greater London in '65 when the County
of London was created in 1889.

I often invoke the memory of the LCC as it is one of the most important,
most progressive and most "improving" organisations London has ever had.
We still live with much of its legacy today and it deserves to me much
better remembered than it is.


UIVMM (always possible!) the County Borough of West Ham remained in
the County of Essex but, as a County Borough, was effectively a free
and independent agent outwith the boundaries of the County Council (as
was the later County Borough of *East* Ham).

That is indeed the case. Some county Borough remained united with
their "parent" county for police purposes (other did not) but in the
case of East and West Ham this was academic as they were all covered by
the Met.

I think that the only other County Borough within present day London was
Croydon. Anyone know better?


These County Boroughs are
interesting creations, being perhaps somewhat similar to the unitary
authorities of today - albeit these modern day creations perhaps lack
some of the drama that surrounded the inception of some of these
County Boroughs,

I've always though that the new unitary authorities ought to have been
given the title of "County Borough". (That was done in certain cases
with the new Welsh authorities.)


Anyway I've gone off on a tangent so I'll stop there. Ian Jelf will
doubtless be along to correct my mistakes in a moment!

As if a Brummie (though loyal lover of and servant to our capital!)
could condescend to do such a thing! :-))))
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

On Dec 23, 8:45 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
That is indeed the case. Some county Borough remained united with
their "parent" county for police purposes (other did not) but in the
case of East and West Ham this was academic as they were all covered by
the Met.

There were originally a lot more non-county borough police forces, but
the government forced mergers, particularly after the war. By 1960 it
was nearly only county borough forces which retained their
independence. Only the independent Birmingham, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool-
Bootle, Manchester-Salford, and Dudley-Walsall-Warley-West Bromwich-
Wolverhampton forces remained in 1974.

I think that the only other County Borough within present day London was
Croydon. Anyone know better?

This is correct. Of course, most of Middlesex's municipal boroughs
had met the population criteria to be made a county borough, and their
efforts to do so had been opposed bitterly by the Middlesex County
Council.

--
Abi