|
King George V
Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what was wrong with that name? Chris |
King George V
"Chris Read" wrote in message ... Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what was wrong with that name? It's named after the dock that (used to be/is) there tim |
King George V
"Chris Read" wrote in message ... 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. Peter Smyth |
King George V
On 20 Dec, 22:21, "tim....." wrote: "Chris Read" wrote: Why was this DLR station so called? It's in North Woolwich, so what was wrong with that name? It's named after the dock that (used to be/is) there It very much is still there! It's one of the "Royals", and the DLR station almost right next to it - however you can't get up to the water's edge, though I think there may be a development in the pipeline here that would change that... although a quick shufti at LB Newham's planning website hasn't shone any light on that. I say it very much is still there - but not all of it! A little bit of the dock to the west was filled in to provide some land on which to build the terminal buildings for City Airport - though AFAICS it really is only a little bit. Said airport has its runway on the former wharf between Albert Dock and King George V Dock. This map shows that I'm not just making it all up: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/oldmap.sr...&y=180250&ar=N (click on 'larger map' under the mapping to, er, get a larger map) More information on King George V from the fab Port Cities website: http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/...ge-V-Dock.html By the by, traditionally speaking North Woolwich was actually a part of Kent, but I won't get in to that now! |
King George V
On Dec 20, 10:44 pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Chris Read" wrote in message ... 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. 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. B2003 |
King George V
wrote in message ... On Dec 20, 10:44 pm, "Peter Smyth" wrote: "Chris Read" wrote in message ... 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. 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, but it's separated from Woolwich by a sodding great tidal river with no road access. 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. East Silvertown would have been more logical, but prosaic. King George V has a nice ring of history about it. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
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. |
King George V
Mizter T wrote:
On 22 Dec, 14:35, "Richard J." wrote: 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. Well it is the Docklands Light Railway, so having stations named after the actual docks does make sense! |
King George V
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:12:40 -0800 (PST), Mizter T 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. ....although this case is slightly different, as the stations (mostly) aren't both in existence at the same time. |
King George V
In message
, Mizter T writes 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. Very minor correction: The Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich was in the County of London, not Kent. It was in Kent before the creation of the County of London in 1889 but was then simply a parish. Only the County of London's subdivisions were given the prefix "Metropolitan Borough of.......), a term which fell out of use with the coming of Greater London in 1965. (The term Metropolitan Borough was of course resurrected in 1974 for the subdivisions of the new Metropolitan counties outside London.) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
King George V
|
King George V
|
King George V
On Dec 22, 11:49 pm, wrote:
Sort of. The 1974 creations are Metropolitan Districts in law, even though most have the status of borough (and many the status of city). All, in fact, now. The last holdout was Sefton, which applied for borough status in 1975. -- Abi |
King George V
On 22 Dec, 21:13, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Mizter T writes 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. Very minor correction: The Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich was in the County of London, not Kent. It was in Kent before the creation of the County of London in 1889 but was then simply a parish. Only the County of London's subdivisions were given the prefix "Metropolitan Borough of.......), a term which fell out of use with the coming of Greater London in 1965. (The term Metropolitan Borough was of course resurrected in 1974 for the subdivisions of the new Metropolitan counties outside London.) Thank you very much Ian, I stand corrected - that was a rather shoddy misconception on my part which in retrospect doesn't really make much sense, given that the boundaries of Kent had significantly retrenched a long time before the coming of Greater London in '65 when the County of London was created in 1889. UIVMM (always possible!) the County Borough of West Ham remained in the County of Essex but, as a County Borough, was effectively a free and independent agent outwith the boundaries of the County Council (as was the later County Borough of *East* Ham). These County Boroughs are interesting creations, being perhaps somewhat similar to the unitary authorities of today - albeit these modern day creations perhaps lack some of the drama that surrounded the inception of some of these County Boroughs, what with the torrid political power struggles set against a backdrop of growing urbanisation. Town versus country, we've been here before! ob-utl - the County Boroughs of both East and West Ham were both squarely well within the realms of London Transport ever since the LTPB's "special area" came into effect in 1933 - though the DLR was transferred from LRT [1] ownership to that of the LDDC [2] in 1992 after operating problems had reached a crescendo, as central government though the LDDC could be a more focused custodian of the railway than the somewhat distracted LRT could manage at the time. In actual fact I've found something a bit interesting here - I thought that the DLR came straight back into LRT ownership when the LDDC dissolved, but it seems that it was actually transferred to the Sectretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (I.e. the now defunct 'super-department' that was the DETR) in March 1998, and only subsequently transferred to TfL shortly after the creation of that body in July 2000 [3]. I had thought that the DLR had been returned to LRT ownership in '98, or at least LRT 'control' - perhaps it was in effect put under LRT control by the DETR during this two year period. I presume the period under DETR ownership was only ever intended to be an interim measure, as the successful London referendum on the creation of the GLA was shortly thereafter in May 1998, and the period after that was spent preparing and readying the new mechanisms of London governance (and arguing about the Tube PPP which the government was pushing through!). Perhaps the DLR was a fairly autonomous agent during this period - indeed the transfer of the DLR to away from LRT to the LDDC was arguably for the best, as during this period the new DLR management seems to have taken advantage of being freed from the shackles of the somewhat dysfunctional LRT and forged a new and more successful path. Also this period brought with it the involvement of the private sector - thankfully the dying Conservative government didn't simply privatise and sell off the DLR in its entirety, instead the system remained in public ownership [4] whilst instead the operational side of the railway (both day to day running and maintenance of the infrastructure - both trains and track) became the responsibility of a franchisee. This approach seems to have been pretty successful, as it would appear has the PFI model whereby extensions (starting with Lewisham, then City Airport and now Woolwich) to the railway are built, owned and maintained by an infrastructure concessionaire. Anyway I've gone off on a tangent so I'll stop there. Ian Jelf will doubtless be along to correct my mistakes in a moment! ----- [1] LRT being London Regional Transport, the principal precursor body to TfL, which was a statutory organisation under the ownership and control of central government, albeit one with a certain degree of operational independence (though this didn't help the fact that it was under resourced, with central government never stumping up the money it needed). [2] LDDC history website - see 'change of ownership' under the section concerning the DLR (section 7) in this monograph: http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/transport/tranmon3.html [3] Details garnered from written evidence submitted to the Commons Select Committee on Transport by the DLR: http://www.publications.parliament.u...78/378we56.htm [4] "Docklands Light Railway Limited is a small organisation that owns the assets of DLR. It is also responsible for planning the future development of the railway [...]" http://www.tfl.gov.uk/foi/2836.aspx |
King George V
On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
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. Only if you're a bit thick , especially if one of them is closed anyway. North Woolwich is itself rather a daft name. It sounds like the northern part of Woolwich, but it's separated from Woolwich by a sodding great tidal river Umm , so a bit like north london and south london then? as adjacent stations on the same line but on different sides of the river was perhaps thought to be too prone to confusion. East Silvertown would have been more logical, but prosaic. King George V has a nice ring of history about it. And means nothing to anyone. B2003 |
King George V
|
King George V
wrote in message ... On Dec 22, 2:35 pm, "Richard J." wrote: 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. Only if you're a bit thick , especially if one of them is closed anyway. Having suffered the fate of once going to Pollokshaws instead of Pollokshields (or the reverse), I'm sure that one doesn't need to be thick to, for example, go to the wrong Shepherd's Bush. It just takes some lack of attention. tim |
King George V
In message
, Mizter T writes On 22 Dec, 21:13, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Mizter T writes 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. Very minor correction: The Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich was in the County of London, not Kent. It was in Kent before the creation of the County of London in 1889 but was then simply a parish. Only the County of London's subdivisions were given the prefix "Metropolitan Borough of.......), a term which fell out of use with the coming of Greater London in 1965. (The term Metropolitan Borough was of course resurrected in 1974 for the subdivisions of the new Metropolitan counties outside London.) Thank you very much Ian, You're welcome! :-) I stand corrected - As I said, a very minor correction. that was a rather shoddy misconception on my part which in retrospect doesn't really make much sense, given that the boundaries of Kent had significantly retrenched a long time before the coming of Greater London in '65 when the County of London was created in 1889. I often invoke the memory of the LCC as it is one of the most important, most progressive and most "improving" organisations London has ever had. We still live with much of its legacy today and it deserves to me much better remembered than it is. UIVMM (always possible!) the County Borough of West Ham remained in the County of Essex but, as a County Borough, was effectively a free and independent agent outwith the boundaries of the County Council (as was the later County Borough of *East* Ham). That is indeed the case. Some county Borough remained united with their "parent" county for police purposes (other did not) but in the case of East and West Ham this was academic as they were all covered by the Met. I think that the only other County Borough within present day London was Croydon. Anyone know better? These County Boroughs are interesting creations, being perhaps somewhat similar to the unitary authorities of today - albeit these modern day creations perhaps lack some of the drama that surrounded the inception of some of these County Boroughs, I've always though that the new unitary authorities ought to have been given the title of "County Borough". (That was done in certain cases with the new Welsh authorities.) Anyway I've gone off on a tangent so I'll stop there. Ian Jelf will doubtless be along to correct my mistakes in a moment! As if a Brummie (though loyal lover of and servant to our capital!) could condescend to do such a thing! :-)))) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
King George V
On Dec 23, 8:45 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
That is indeed the case. Some county Borough remained united with their "parent" county for police purposes (other did not) but in the case of East and West Ham this was academic as they were all covered by the Met. There were originally a lot more non-county borough police forces, but the government forced mergers, particularly after the war. By 1960 it was nearly only county borough forces which retained their independence. Only the independent Birmingham, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool- Bootle, Manchester-Salford, and Dudley-Walsall-Warley-West Bromwich- Wolverhampton forces remained in 1974. I think that the only other County Borough within present day London was Croydon. Anyone know better? This is correct. Of course, most of Middlesex's municipal boroughs had met the population criteria to be made a county borough, and their efforts to do so had been opposed bitterly by the Middlesex County Council. -- Abi |
King George V
In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote: In message , writes In article , (Ian Jelf) wrote: (The term Metropolitan Borough was of course resurrected in 1974 for the subdivisions of the new Metropolitan counties outside London.) Sort of. The 1974 creations are Metropolitan Districts in law, even though most have the status of borough (and many the status of city). I *think* they all do now, actually. (I'm sure someone will now find a MD that isn't!) There are lots of MDs that are not Cities but you may be right that all have the status of Borough, if not City. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
King George V
|
King George V
On Dec 25, 4:34 pm, wrote:
There are lots of MDs that are not Cities but you may be right that all have the status of Borough, if not City. _All_ of the MDs have the status of borough, even those that also have the status of city. -- Abi |
King George V
Mizter T wrote:
UIVMM (always possible!) the County Borough of West Ham remained in the County of Essex but, as a County Borough, was effectively a free and independent agent outwith the boundaries of the County Council (as was the later County Borough of *East* Ham). I believe so. The main distinction would be that whilst the County Council didn't cover them, the Lord Lieutenant would. |
King George V
In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes Mizter T wrote: UIVMM (always possible!) the County Borough of West Ham remained in the County of Essex but, as a County Borough, was effectively a free and independent agent outwith the boundaries of the County Council (as was the later County Borough of *East* Ham). I believe so. The main distinction would be that whilst the County Council didn't cover them, the Lord Lieutenant would. And the Sheriff. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk