Richard J. wrote:

There are several Métro stations in Paris named in just that way, for
example Strasbourg St-Denis at the junction of the Boulevard de
Strasbourg and the Boulevard St-Denis, which I doubt if many people
confuse with the towns of Strasbourg or St-Denis.

....any more than people confuse Tottenham Court Road (here we go again)
with Tottenham Hale. Ditto Edgware Road and Edgware, which are equally
far apart.

Rupert Candy wrote:

...any more than people confuse Tottenham Court Road (here we go
again) with Tottenham Hale.

I know that happens.

Ditto Edgware Road and Edgware, which are
equally far apart.

I know that happens a lot, along with Finchley/Finchley Road.

asdf wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:39:07 GMT, Phil Clark wrote:

I often used to call
various shop branches the "Tottenham Court Road branch" even though most
were on the other three roads that intersect at the crossroads the station
is on.
"St Giles Circus" would clearly be a better name for the station, as
it more clearly locates the station - TCR is quite a long road and has
two other stations on it. Personally I think that street names should
only be used if they are very short streets and therefore the position
of the station is fairly obvious.

Or maybe we should adopt the American convention and call such
junctions by both names - "Tottenham Court Road & Oxford Street"

I've always thought there's a sort of implicit "Central Line &
Tottenham Court Road".

The H&C between Liverpool Street and Hammersmith has almost all of its
stations named (at least in the original names, though some have
changed over time) after the road it happens to be crossing at that
point.

I used to work on North Gower Street (yes we called the location
"Euston") and always wondered why Euston Square station not only was
not on Euston Square, which is by the mainline station, but had never
been connected up underground with either Euston or Warren Street
underground stations to form a proper interchange.

IIRC only a relatively short length of tunnel would be required to
link the eastern ends of the platforms at Euston Square with Euston.
(Little chance of it ever happening, though.)

Quite the opposite actually - it's explicitly mentioned as a possible
outcome of the redevelopment of the mainline and Tube stations. See
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/125 and the links from there.

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

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:06:18 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Quite the opposite actually - it's explicitly mentioned as a possible
outcome of the redevelopment of the mainline and Tube stations. See
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/125 and the links from there.

Link to the NR .doc appears to be dead...

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:06:18 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Quite the opposite actually - it's explicitly mentioned as a possible
outcome of the redevelopment of the mainline and Tube stations. See
http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/125 and the links from there.

Link to the NR .doc appears to be dead...

Duly noted. I can't find any version of the original on the site, but
there is still a Google-cached copy at:
http://tinyurl.com/g7lrz

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

On 8 Jul 2006 08:50:39 -0700, "Paul Oter"
wrote:


snip
Mercifully I've yet to hear someone call an area "City Thameslink".

Which shows just how inappropriate a name this is. For a start, there
are several other Thameslink stations in the City.

Only two - Farringdon and Blackfriars, with Moorgate not really
fitting the label.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 02:15:37 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Wikipedia editors once got in a mess trying to say
where Euston is - "Camden" may be the borough name but everyone
thinks of Camden Town, "St Pancras" is an old village name

It isn't, it's the parish name. A parish might have more than one
village, with the Wikipaedia entry using the words:-

"St Pancras was originally a medieval parish which ran from close to
what is now Oxford Street north as far as Highgate, and from what is
now Regent's Park in the west to the road now known as York Way in the
east, boundaries which take in much of the current London Borough of
Camden, ..."
which would have encompassed a number of habitations.

Older maps are often a good guide to original placenames but in this
case something preceding the Ordnance Survey will be needed, possibly
a copy of "Middlesex" the official county history published in several
editions by the MCC ?
snip
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:

snip
Mercifully I've yet to hear someone call an area "City Thameslink".

Which shows just how inappropriate a name this is. For a start, there
are several other Thameslink stations in the City.

Only two - Farringdon and Blackfriars, with Moorgate not really
fitting the label.

Although given the current TOC's attempts to rebrand, how long before it's
"City First Capital Connect" (urgh!)?

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 17:48:51 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

asdf wrote:

IIRC only a relatively short length of tunnel would be required to
link the eastern ends of the platforms at Euston Square with Euston.
(Little chance of it ever happening, though.)

What's the main problem? An interchange between the Northern Line Charing X
branch and the Met would no end of help.


I seem to remember a plan in the not too distand past to redevelop the
ticket hall and entrance for Euston Square to the eastern end of the
platforms but haven't heard anything about it recently.

AFAIR there hasn't ever been a serious (official) suggestion to
provide a link from there to Euston station and that makes me wonder
if there is something underground that might be in the way (e.g. major
services or even governmental).

JohnK

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:23:33 GMT someone who may be
(John F Kappler) wrote this:-

AFAIR there hasn't ever been a serious (official) suggestion to
provide a link from there to Euston station and that makes me wonder
if there is something underground that might be in the way (e.g. major
services

There is perhaps a "river", otherwise known as a sewer. There are a
number that are very close to some of the surface (cut and cover)
lines. Of course the southern part of the Circle Line runs alongside
one of Bazalgette's interceptor sewers. These were a great danger in
the Second World War and flood gates were installed in some stations
because of them, rather then the Thames which was the usual reasons
for the gates. ISTR that the Fleet passes through the Kings Cross/St
Pancras station complex in a large pipe.

or even governmental).

It appears that most governmental tunnels in London (largely built
between the 1930s and 1950s, after which policy changed) were
somewhat further south of that area. There were some underground
buildings in various parts of London though.

For those who are interested there is a good summary of the policy
background (and the later changes to it) starting with the section
entitled "The Central Government War Room" at
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/featur...new_page_3.htm

Indeed, for those who are interested in this aspect of the 20th
Century, the whole site http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/index.shtml
contains much information on the Second World War and Cold War.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54