On 03/06/2013 18:24, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:07:32 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Is there any precedent for naming what is really a National Rail
service, albeit procured by TfL? Only LU has named lines.

err... Thameslink. Robin Hood Line...

Fair comment Roland (and others).

Thameslink is a notable exception but there is not quite the same
level of coherent branding and naming on the NR network as there is on
the Tube network.

Bits of the rail network tend to be associated with the company
running the service (now or long ago) or some geographic link with
places served or the line runs near to (e.g. Brighton main line, Great
Western, East Coast Main Line).

The copying of TfL's "status boards" has meant some companies now
allocate names to particular services or groups thereof. Southern
Railway does this on their website.

I still think Crossrail should be called Crossrail. It's an
established name and I think it neatly explains what the line's
essential purpose is - a fast rail link (a)cross London. I accept I'm
probably in a minority but that's nothing new!


The Margaret Memorial Line.

For any right thinking Londoner, that's where the discussion ends.