"Ben Nunn" wrote in message
...

IMO Lyndhurst Road is completely meaningless
to anybody who does not come from the area.

Most names would be completely meaningless to
anybody who doesn't come from the local area, surely?

Absolutely.

Unlike Rayners Lane, the New Forest is a tourist attraction, and as such,
there is cash value for the railway in having a station named after it.

Lyndhurst Road sufficed perfectly well for over 100 years.

It can't have done, or they would not have changed it.

Does anyone know where Preston Road is?

It's in Preston, a London suburb with a more famous namesake up north. The
"Road" helped distinguish, when built, the station in Preston Middx from the
stations in Preston Lancs and Preston Sussex. I think it's a bad name for
the station - "Uxendon" would have been more distinctive, and equally
geographically valid. The name Uxendon seems to have largely disappeared
from maps.

Or Elversen Road?

Another bad name, but the names "St John's" and "Ravensbourne" were already
taken.

Or any number of other Roadal stations in London?

"Road" stations are a bad thing IMO. The fact that there are others doesn't
mean it is a good idea to reintroduce one that has already been "fixed".

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes