In the message : ...
Piccadilly Pilot wrote:
"Dave Arquati" write
Richard J. wrote:
Alan (in Brussels) wrote:


IMHO the basic problem is that general English usage requires any
additional word(s) specifying which of various options applies to
precede the generic name (IOW: we say eg 'East Acton' rather than
'Acton East')

But we have Dagenham East, Hounslow West, Bromley South, Penge East,
...

I wonder whether the "East Acton" form is used where such a district
already existed, and the "Bromley South" form was a new term invented
by the railway. But where one such station exists, others with the
same town name seem to adopt the same order. Are there in fact any
places with both forms in use at different stations, e.g. (fictitious
example) Surbiton South and West Surbiton ?


Acton Town & Acton Central plus North, South, East & West Acton (not
forgetting poor little Acton Main Line, just to keep the set complete
:-) )

There are also the Ealings; North, South, West, Common and Broadway.

North Wembley but Wembley Central, Stadium & Park. East Finchley & West
Finchley, but Finchley Central. (Are there any "Central Something"
stations instead of "Something Central"?)

No 'Central something' stations (not even a 'Central Park' somewhere?), but
plenty of 'Central something' thoroughfares: according to eg p. 293 (index)
of the 2000 OS/Philips London Street atlas there are 5 cases of 'Central
Avenue' in different postal districts and another 7 in named boroughs. Also
a similar frequency of 'Central Parade' as well as a sprinking of the usual
other types: Ct., Gdns., Rd., St., Way...

And that perhaps provides an alternative way of answering the OP's question:
the rule for street names in English is that the local identification (if
any) always precedes the type of throroughfare. Perhaps one day a new
station will take its name from the adjacent existing street, and then we'll
see which rules apply.

Regards,

- Alan (in Brussels - mind the spamtrap)