Thread: King George V
View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 08, 02:12 PM posted to uk.transport.london
Mizter T Mizter T is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: May 2005
Posts: 6,077
Default King George V


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.