"Graham J" wrote in message
...
...

Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater
London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe
areas
that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it.
However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless
it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA.

When we had the GLC the term 'Greater London' did seem to be used a lot
more, though that has never been part of any postal addresses. Now we
have
Greater London Authority the term is just as well defined, but we only
really hear mention of the Mayor Of London and the London Assembly that
comprise it.

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater London?
And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

Nick

In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

Perhaps LB ("London Borough") might give you a clue? But why do you drag
"city" into it? The City of London has no authority over the village of
Downe as far as I know.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater
London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

He means a city as opposed to The City.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

The GLA area.

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of
Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

It's a bit of an anomaly but I imagine Downe relies on Bromley
economically, so it's better in LB Bromley (and therefore ends up being
in "London") than elsewhere.

Being a relatively new Londoner, I'm quite happy with describing or
hearing Croydon, Romford, Uxbridge etc. as being in "London", taking it
by context to mean Greater London; if someone from those places talks
about "going into London", that makes sense too.

The way that conurbations work, it would seem silly for the outer
boroughs to be "returned" to their old counties; transport certainly
works better coordinated on a "London" basis, and that by itself
requires a Greater London authority.

Watford seems to be a case in point; an urban centre linked closely to
other Greater London urban centres with train, Tube and bus links,
requiring TfL to provide services quite a far way outside of their area
(both bus and Tube), and making it more difficult to provide the Croxley
Link. I know TfL provide other services outside their area, but Watford
seems particularly odd since it is served by TfL bus *and* Tube services
(and will be served by TfL Rail services if they take on management of
Silverlink Metro).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:

Watford seems to be a case in point; an urban centre linked closely
to other Greater London urban centres with train, Tube and bus links,
requiring TfL to provide services quite a far way outside of their
area (both bus and Tube), and making it more difficult to provide the
Croxley Link. I know TfL provide other services outside their area,
but Watford seems particularly odd since it is served by TfL bus
*and* Tube services (and will be served by TfL Rail services if they
take on management of Silverlink Metro).

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the Bakerloo
was cut back.

--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the Uxbridges, not
the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the front...

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the
Uxbridges, not the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the
front...

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale wrote:
In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the
Uxbridges, not the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the
front...

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

I think this pedantic argument has been done to death on this newsgroup.
If you're going to split hairs over the type of stock, first recognise
the difference between "tube" and "Tube". The former may be taken to
mean just trains using the bored deep tube lines (if you wish to be so
pedantic about it). The latter refers to the London Underground system.

Of course, any reasonable person knows what someone means when they talk
about "tube services". Or even "Tube services". And I think pretty much
everyone on this newsgroup understands the difference between deep tube
and subsurface lines.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Peter Beale wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 12 Jan 2005:

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the
Uxbridges, not the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the
front...

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

Hmmm - TfL now describes all of them as "The Tube"..... (something about
when you're in a hole, stop digging?)
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 2 January 2005

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Peter Beale) wrote:


They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).


www.thetube.com (tube.tfl.gov.uk) seems to have details of the met
line on it (Under the heading "London Underground The Tube") :-)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Peter Beale) wrote:

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

I think tube/subsurface has long since gone the same way as less/fewer
and have/of...
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK