London calling

[muddythefish]

Now then, when I were a lad the London terminii were known as Liverpool Street, Paddington, King's Cross, St Pancras etc etc.

These days, when you are travelling on the train you are told you are arriving at "London" Euston or "London" Victoria.

It's the same with airports, Luton is known as London Luton, London Stansted etc.

Is this because people think by sticking London in front of a name it makes it better or more important ?

All seems pretty daft and unnecessary to me.

 

[yorksrob]

Trains from Kent were always announced as going to "London Charing Cross", "London Victoria", "London Cannon Street" etc when I was growing up during the 1980's. Waterloo East was always plain old "Waterloo East" for some reason.

 

[Hardcastle]

Bit daft if i might say Luton is Luton, Stansted is Stansted they are hardly London.

 

[steamybrian]

In my working days for BR there were many visitors to the country did not understand that Victoria or Charing Cross or Waterloo were terminal stations in London. Particularly Americans who for example said Victoria was also a location with the same name in the "states" with just an intermediate station.

 

[cjp]

Is this because people think by sticking London in front of a name it makes it better or more important ?

Yes

In the same way we have airports miles from London claining to be a London Airport eg
London Southend and London Oxford

 

[steamybrian]

Bit daft if i might say Luton is Luton, Stansted is Stansted they are hardly London.

"London Ashford Lydd" airport is about 70 miles from London and they advertise 37 minutes by train from Ashford- No mention of how to get from Ashford to Lydd (last train left in 1967)--

http://www.lydd-airport.co.uk/

 

[tsr]

There has to be a way of distinguishing certain stations with the same name in different cities across the country. For example, London Victoria vs Manchester Victoria. Once you go down that route of naming, you may as well add the name of the city to the name of any especially major station, especially if it can be reached on intercity-style services, does not have a name obviously linking it to a given city (if you were unfamiliar with the rail network and "Fenchurch Street" was announced, would you always be expected to know where it was?), or if it is also a popular destination from many areas of the country. Otherwise, you'd merely get a messy "Victoria (London)" on things like booking engines.

I do feel that, to a certain extent, it can add some local character and dignity to state the city's name after a long journey. "We are now approaching London Marylebone - this train terminates here - thank you for travelling with us" sounds a lot more pleasant than "This is Marylebone, all change", for example. I don't like overly verbose or pretentious announcements, but it's nice to remember that a journey can be made to feel other than mundane, and to some people, it's not "just another station".

Within a city's own transport network - e.g. the Tube - it would seem more likely that someone would know they were at the Victoria station in that general area. It's also likely that the situation demands concise, punchy announcements, which contain details which are easy to focus on. That said, I have come across incidents such as a North American tourist thinking they were in Liverpool but actually being stood in Liverpool Street Tube Station...

 

[steamybrian]

........... That said, I did once come across a North American tourist who though they were in Liverpool but were stood in Liverpool Street Tube Station...

Years ago I met a tourist who got confused between Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street......

 

[Tetchytyke]

The horror of naming a railway station after the city* that it is in (*yes I know that only Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street and Cannon Street are in London).

For the airports it is more to do with marketing, admittedly, although Stansted was designed and built as a London airport.

 

[Railsigns]

Now then, when I were a lad the London terminii were known as Liverpool Street, Paddington, King's Cross, St Pancras etc etc.

These days, when you are travelling on the train you are told you are arriving at "London" Euston or "London" Victoria.

It's the same with airports, Luton is known as London Luton, London Stansted etc.

Is this because people think by sticking London in front of a name it makes it better or more important ?

It actually seems like the opposite to me. Omitting the "London" part of the name suggests, somewhat pretentiously, that London is so important that you're just meant to know that it's London! The effect is to elevate each of its principal stations to a status equal to any (supposedly) lesser city outside of London. So you might hear, for example, "the King's Cross to Edinburgh train" but never "the London to Waverley train".

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Years ago I met a tourist who got confused between Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street......

Indeed there's a thread about the fairly frequent instances of people getting on the wrong train at Norwich. I think that we should avoid the names of other settlements being used in station names (discounting metro/tram/underground systems, obviously), so London Liverpool Street ought to become 'London Broadgate' or similar. Not sure of a better name for Burnley Manchester Road though...

 

[button_boxer]

The principal station in Edinburgh is named "Edinburgh" - the word Waverley isn't part of the station's official name, whereas "King's Cross" is part of the name of the station at the London end.

 

[TEW]

Indeed there's a thread about the fairly frequent instances of people getting on the wrong train at Norwich. I think that we should avoid the names of other settlements being used in station names (discounting metro/tram/underground systems, obviously), so London Liverpool Street ought to become 'London Broadgate' or similar. Not sure of a better name for Burnley Manchester Road though...

You've then got the two London Road stations, neither of which are in London, and don't always have the place they are actually in referred too. Officially they are called London Road(Brighton) and London Road(Guildford) but locally they're often just referred to as London Road.

 

[Railsigns]

The principal station in Edinburgh is named "Edinburgh" - the word Waverley isn't part of the station's official name

Official or otherwise, "Edinburgh Waverley" is what currently appears on the station's name boards.

 

[muddythefish]

It actually seems like the opposite to me. Omitting the "London" part of the name suggests, somewhat pretentiously, that London is so important that you're just meant to know that it's London! The effect is to elevate each of its principal stations to a status equal to any (supposedly) lesser city outside of London. So you might hear, for example, "the King's Cross to Edinburgh train" but never "the London to Waverley train".

People DID know the stations were in London. My dad when he went down to the smoke always went to Euston, never "London" Euston. To my mind, it's all part of the modern aggrandisement of the capital and its economic dominance.

 

[Taunton]

I seem to recall it was a UIC recommendation of some years ago that stations in principal cities should be known by the city name first with the individual name coming second. Britain was not the only country to have made more of the station name than its city.

I certainly recall in the 1970s that the main entrance to Edinburgh Waverley had a BR logo and a large "Waverley Station" sign, no trace of Edinburgh at all.

 

[Darren R]

So why isn't it "London London Bridge" then?!

...Not sure of a better name for Burnley Manchester Road though...

I can suggest one or two.....!

 

[nw1]

You've then got the two London Road stations, neither of which are in London, and don't always have the place they are actually in referred too. Officially they are called London Road(Brighton) and London Road(Guildford) but locally they're often just referred to as London Road.

Going OT somewhat, but has anyone noticed the curious similarities between the two London Roads? When they had slam door stock, each London Road had some or all of their services with the headcode 42 (Guildford-Cobham-Waterloo, and, IIRC Brighton-Seaford) and in both cases they are the first station on a branch which turns east after heading north out of the city centre station. Also, the London Roads are both followed by 2 "regular" stations then a junction station.

Back on topic and I think the Brighton one is signed as just "London Road" (last went through it last summer).

 

[313103]

Could be argued that all the principle stations in the uk have the city or town before the name of the station ie Birmingham New Street, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Glasgow Queen Street, Cardiff Central & Edinburgh Waverley. These are all places where other stations exist within the cities boundary. London is not the exception to the rule.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Though Moorfields and James Street in Liverpool aren't signed as 'Liverpool xxxx'; nor is (Birkenhead) Hamilton Square.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So why isn't it "London London Bridge" then?!

Well, London Bridge is a stupid name anyway... '(London) Borough Market' would be better.

As for the two 'London Road' stations, the one in Guildford could become 'Stoke Park'; or simply name both after the areas they serve rather than a road.

 

[moogal]

People DID know the stations were in London.

What, all of them?

My dad when he went down to the smoke always went to Euston, never "London" Euston.

How nice for him. But he already knew it was in London. Imagine you've never been to London before, don't know what the stations are called, and are trying to find the right platform for the London train. Having "London" in the station name is very helpful.

To my mind, it's all part of the modern aggrandisement of the capital and its economic dominance.

That's quite a chip on your shoulder there. Since when was having the name of the town/city in the name of its main railway stations some sort of showing off? Hell, we'd better rename Birmingham New Street, Birmingham Moor Street and Birmingham Snow Hill quickly before they get too big headed...

 

[Western Lord]

Has any foreign tourist got on the Piccadilly line at Heathrow and travelled all the way to Cockfosters waiting for a station with "London" in it's name? The common sense answer to station naming is that platform signage should tell you where you are (i.e. town or city name) while the name on the front of the station does not need to mention the town or city since it can be assumed that people who are in the place know where they are (so, Birmingham New Street on the platform, but just New Street Station over the entrance).

 

[muddythefish]

How nice for him. But he already knew it was in London. Imagine you've never been to London before, don't know what the stations are called, and are trying to find the right platform for the London train. Having "London" in the station name is very helpful.


That's quite a chip on your shoulder there. Since when was having the name of the town/city in the name of its main railway stations some sort of showing off? Hell, we'd better rename Birmingham New Street, Birmingham Moor Street and Birmingham Snow Hill quickly before they get too big headed...

Are you from the US, perchance ?

Have a nice day" in London, "England".

That's presumably so you don't get confused with all the other Londons in the world.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I don't see the issue here. Prefixing the town or city name to a station aids travellers. Why should London termini be any different to Birmingham New Street or Southend Victoria in that regard?

People DID know the stations were in London. My dad when he went down to the smoke always went to Euston, never "London" Euston. To my mind, it's all part of the modern aggrandisement of the capital and its economic dominance.

Your father is one person; I don't think he can be representative of every railway traveller of that period.

Seeing the standardisation of "London" as a prefix to capital termini as some way for London to gain yet more wealth, is utter wibble... um, if you don't mind me saying.

 

[Muzer]

Are you from the US, perchance ?

Have a nice day" in London, "England".

That's presumably so you don't get confused with all the other Londons in the world.

What on earth are you on about? Why does approving of putting "London" in the name of stations make him American?

Putting "London" in the station name is good for:
* Tourists
* People who have never travelled by rail before and may not know their "local" London terminus

I don't really think you can dispute either of these.

Plus, just calling it "Liverpool Street" rather than "London Liverpool Street" would further exacerbate the current situation at Norwich.

It makes perfect sense on the tube, since the majority of the journey is in (Greater) London, and certainly most journeys by tourists/infrequent rail users will be from some place in London to some other place in London. So putting London before all the stations would be ridiculous. On the national rail network, on the other hand, most trains will only have one or two stops in London, so calling the station "London" makes perfect sense.

 

[nottinghamcity]

The opposite is often the case in locations where there is only a single principal station. Nottingham Midland is seldom used as a name today, simply Nottingham, whereas Nottingham Victoria is still remembered as such. In fact does Wolverhampton even have a station name?

 

[oldman]

IIRC, BR did try to drop the Waverley name after Princes Street closed, by analogy with other cities with only one main station, but there was local 'outrage', and it was retained, though not in timetables.

 

[AndyW33]

Well the two Wolverhampton stations were adjacent, and known as High Level and Low Level. It is High Level that survives. The two names were needed because they had separate entrances, taxi drop off points and so on. But as far as I can remember one set of bus stops served both stations.
Glasgow of course still has Central and Queen Street with high and low level platforms on lines that are physically separate, but are the stations signed as High or Low Level?

Perhaps the closest comparison today to what Wolverhampton had is Wigan North Western and Wigan Wallgate, two stations very close to each other, but not quite close enough to make into a single station, and one at a lower level than the other.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The rule does get broken sometimes.
VT's Voyagers insist on putting up "Euston" on the front, not "London Euston", even when there is space for it (like all those signs on the A1 saying "Peterbro'" when there is plenty of space to use "Peterborough").
"Euston" is also what gets auto-announced at Flint station at least.

At Earlestown and Newton le Willows, "Manchester Piccadilly" and "Manchester Victoria" have recently become just "Piccadilly" and "Victoria".
This is from the same voice ("Anne"?) who wouldn't dream of being so sloppy when she announces the same train at Liverpool Lime St.

It took a long, long time for the Western Region to fall in line and use "London Paddington" instead of "Paddington", yet now we have the "LMR" going the other way! :cry:

 

[Tetchytyke]

Has any foreign tourist got on the Piccadilly line at Heathrow and travelled all the way to Cockfosters waiting for a station with "London" in it's name?

But they are on the London Underground. By then they know they're in London.

I vote we get rid of the town/city name on every station, so at Leeds we can have trains announced to "Interchange". Let the tourists work out whether they end up in Bradford or Barnsley.

We shouldn't specify a town name with "Central" either. Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool or Gainsborough, you decide.

The rule does get broken sometimes.
VT's Voyagers insist on putting up "Euston" on the front, not "London Euston", even when there is space for it (like all those signs on the A1 saying "Peterbro'" when there is plenty of space to use "Peterborough").
"Euston" is also what gets auto-announced at Flint station at least.

How strange, given that it is announced as "London Euston" here in Apsley, where most people already know where Euston is.