"London..." prefix on station names

[js1000]

Travelling on Thameslink, your train will call at "London St Pancras" and "London Blackfriars" and not at "London Farringdon" but rather just "Farringdon". This seems a bit unusual to me given all three take their names from a geographical area (rather than a street for example that could be in any town).

Is there any reason for this or is it just an anomaly? Once Crossrail is operational (as a National Rail service no less) would Bond Street be shown as "London Bond Street" to follow the same conventions as Cannon Street for example?

To be fair, commuter services Thameslink have no need for a London prefix if I'm honest. I suppose it's the main London terminals should ought to be referred to in that way. The new Newcastle to Manchester Airport services with Manchester prefixes are a bit of a repetitive mouthful - "calling at Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport".

 

[paul1609]

Then there's:
London Luton (LTN)
London City (one of the more apt names - LCY)
London Biggin Hill (BQH)
and of course London Gatwick (which also recognises the London bit in its IATA code - LGW)
and don't forget London International (YXU) - actually it is in Ontario which is a really inconvenient diversion!

London Ashford (Lydd) Airport (LYX)

 

[Bromley boy]

London Ashford (Lydd) Airport (LYX)

Lydd is closer to France than to London! There’s also “London Oxford” airport (OXF).

 

[Lucan]

There are people who seem to think that there is some kudos attached to being associated with London, but I don't get it myself. If you can call Lydd "London" then someone has really lost the plot.

 

[03_179]

The tickets used to have London BR.

In old Fares Manuals it listed all the London Terminal Stations which also included Vauxhall and Kensington Olympia !

When Privatisation happened it went from London BR to London Stations. Took us a lot of time to checkall the Fares Systems (CAPRI etc.) to make they were all correct.

 

[xotGD]

Straying off topic, but to avoid potential confusion and wrong-routing, any station with the name of another town or city in its name ought to be renamed:

Liverpool St
Oxford Road
London Road
etc.

 

[DJames]

The "International " suffix is equally pointless.

I wouldn't call it pointless in the case of Birmingham International, though, as the airport was called Birmingham International Airport until recently. I guess a case could be made to rename the station now that the adjacent airport is Birmingham Airport.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Is that station Derry Waterside?

I believe Waterside (and the side of the river where the station is) would strongly disagree.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I remember in the 1970s alighting from the night ferry at Parkeston Quay, along with lots of bleary-eyed first-time visitors to the UK, to be confronted with a departure indicator giving a choice of two trains:
1. Liverpool Street
2. Liverpool Lime Street
Much confusion all round and many wrong trains boarded!

 

[urbophile]

To be fair, commuter services Thameslink have no need for a London prefix if I'm honest. I suppose it's the main London terminals should ought to be referred to in that way. The new Newcastle to Manchester Airport services with Manchester prefixes are a bit of a repetitive mouthful - "calling at Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport".

In Italy they seem to be fairly consistent about naming stations in big cities: always the city name first followed by the specific station. So that on a local train through Genova, for example, you have the litany of Genova Nervi, Genova Quinto, Genova Quarto, Genova Sturla, Genova Brignole... etc. (I may have missed some out or muddled the sequence). Only on Metro systems is it taken for granted that you know where you are. I think the best compromise is something like ours: the city name for termini and just the local name for others.

 

[DavidGrain]

I wouldn't call it pointless in the case of Birmingham International, though, as the airport was called Birmingham International Airport until recently. I guess a case could be made to rename the station now that the adjacent airport is Birmingham Airport.

As I recall, Birmingham International was built to serve the National Exhibition Centre in 1976 which incidentally is next to the airport but was not, at that time, next to the airport terminals. I remember flying out of the old airport terminal on the Coventry Road (A45) in 1981. The new terminals were built 1984 onwards in a position where they could be served by a rail link (originally MagLev) from the station. I think Birmingham Airport/NEC would be more understandable today than Birmingham International.

 

[xotGD]

As I recall, Birmingham International was built to serve the National Exhibition Centre in 1976 which incidentally is next to the airport but was not, at that time, next to the airport terminals. I remember flying out of the old airport terminal on the Coventry Road (A45) in 1981. The new terminals were built 1984 onwards in a position were they could be served by a rail link (originally MagLev) from the station. I think Birmingham Airport/NEC would be more understandable today than Birmingham International.

Especially as the International Convention Centre is in the city centre and not served by Birmingham International.

 

[DavidGrain]

Especially as the International Convention Centre is in the city centre and not served by Birmingham International.

If we are not careful we are going to need a Birmingham prefix thread. The ICC was built with the railway tunnel underneath wide enough to have two station platforms. Then the plan was changed to have the station in the open air at St Vincent Street just north of the ICC, but I understand Virgin vetoed that as it would mean the local trains stopping at an extra station and slowing down the long distance trains.

 

[DPWH]

My vote would be for "Birmingham Airport-NEC" 6 syllables, but pretty straightforward.

 

[DPWH]

Back on topic; "London Fields" is not a central London station. Nor are there a great many fields there.

 

[ejstubbs]

There is quite a nice park, though.

London Fields is a place name in its own right, of course, so the "London" part of it in this case is not a railway-imposed prefix.

 

[johnnychips]

My vote would be for "Birmingham Airport-NEC" 6 syllables, but pretty straightforward.

That’s eight syllables unless you pronounce NEC ‘neck’.

 

[DJames]

That’s eight syllables unless you pronounce NEC ‘neck’.

I think just 'Birmingham Airport' would suffice, the automated announcer handles it just fine with the current name iirc, with something along the lines of 'change here for the National Exhibition Centre'.

 

[CeeJ]

There are people who seem to think that there is some kudos attached to being associated with London, but I don't get it myself. If you can call Lydd "London" then someone has really lost the plot.

From what I recall, particularly with airports, rebranding themselves with the London prefix increased passenger numbers!

Though I suppose that's not surprising...

 

[adrock1976]

From what I recall, particularly with airports, rebranding themselves with the London prefix increased passenger numbers!

Though I suppose that's not surprising...

Would it work for "London Teesside Airport" though?

 

[centraluser]

I am aware that, only this month, a Chiltern service heading towards (London) Marylebone had a stop order placed on it to pick up a passenger who was well into a journey to Stratford-upon-Avon, but actually wanted to go to Stratford (London).

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

In Italy they seem to be fairly consistent about naming stations in big cities: always the city name first followed by the specific station. So that on a local train through Genova, for example, you have the litany of Genova Nervi, Genova Quinto, Genova Quarto, Genova Sturla, Genova Brignole... etc. (I may have missed some out or muddled the sequence). Only on Metro systems is it taken for granted that you know where you are. I think the best compromise is something like ours: the city name for termini and just the local name for others.

Same in Germany. The RE1 through Berlin, for example, calls at Potsdam Hbf, then Berlin-Wannsee, Berlin-Charlottenburg, Berlin Zoologischer Garten, Berlin Hbf, Berlin Friedrichstraße, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Berlin Ostbahnhof and Berlin Ostkreuz before finally reaching Erkner, which is in Brandenburg again. Only a few S-Bahn announcements in Berlin and Hamburg (but not in Rhine-Ruhr) omit the city name, although even the S-Bahn stations themselves have the Berlin prefix officially. But they seem to have kind of lost track. In 1975 the city of Rheydt merged with Mönchengladbach, but there are still two Hbf stations, Mönchengladbach Hbf and Rheydt Hbf. Rheydt-Odenkirchen station is also actually in a part of Mönchengladbach now, so should be renamed “Mönchengladbach-Odenkirchen” or maybe “Mönchengladbach-Rheydt-Odenkirchen”?

 

[alistairlees]

Same in Germany. The RE1 through Berlin, for example, calls at Potsdam Hbf, then Berlin-Wannsee, Berlin-Charlottenburg, Berlin Zoologischer Garten, Berlin Hbf, Berlin Friedrichstraße, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Berlin Ostbahnhof and Berlin Ostkreuz before finally reaching Erkner, which is in Brandenburg again. Only a few S-Bahn announcements in Berlin and Hamburg (but not in Rhine-Ruhr) omit the city name, although even the S-Bahn stations themselves have the Berlin prefix officially. But they seem to have kind of lost track. In 1975 the city of Rheydt merged with Mönchengladbach, but there are still two Hbf stations, Mönchengladbach Hbf and Rheydt Hbf. Rheydt-Odenkirchen station is also actually in a part of Mönchengladbach now, so should be renamed “Mönchengladbach-Odenkirchen” or maybe “Mönchengladbach-Rheydt-Odenkirchen”?

And the same in Gdansk. From memory I think there are over 20 stations in Gdansk that start with "Gdansk". There are no exceptions so far as I recall.

 

[etr221]

One of issues is that - compared to Britain - in many foreign counties, towns and cities are far more clearly defined, as to where their boundary is, and so whether a station is (or isn't) in Berlin/Gdansk/Paris/etc.

But if National Rail is going to have a group of stations that it regards as 'London' (that aren't defined by being those in any common definition of London), than perhaps it is more important that they are consistently called 'London Whichever'.

 

[robk23oxf]

I've just been checking the ORR list of stations, none of them have the 'London' prefix. We've got Euston, Paddington and Victoria etc. Of course the 'London' prefix is added unofficially a lot of the time.

 

[AndyW33]

As regards the airports, while several minor airports call themselves "London" for marketing purposes, the only airports with scheduled passenger services that are officially recognised as being London airports are City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Stansted, and Southend. The official recognition comes both from the UK government and from the international aviation body IATA. In a way it is a bit like the "London Terminals" rail ticket destination - airline ticket booking and enquiry systems recognise the city code LON as encompassing all six airports, and you can search for flights to/from London without specifying which London airport you want to use. Unlike the rail system's "Maltese Cross" symbol on tickets, for journeys connecting across Central London, although it is possible to find connections that fly into one London airport and out of another, the journey between them isn't included in the ticket validity

 

[urbophile]

Part of it is down to the London-centric arrogance which assumes that 'everybody knows' that such and such a place is in London. Hence Piccadilly without qualification refers to London Piccadilly and not Manchester. St Paul's Cathedral is always know as such and not as 'London Cathedral': nobody refers to Lincoln cathedral, for example, as 'St Mary's' although it is.

 

[AndyW33]

While there is London-centred arrogance, the example you give doesn't work. Admittedly St Paul's is the only cathedral within the historic City of London, but it is far from being the only cathedral in London, even of the Anglican church (Southwark being both within London and a cathedral) By the time you add the Catholic Westminster Cathedral, and the dozen or more cathedrals of different Orthodox denominations that are in London, calling anything "London Cathedral" would cause infinite confusion.
Lincoln, however has only one cathedral of any denomination (and, nowadays, only one station called Lincoln).

 

[si404]

There's also Southwark's Catholic Cathedral too, adding to the "London Cathedral" issue. And there's the other issue as to why Lincoln's isn't typically called "St Mary's Cathedral", but "Lincoln Cathedral" - there's 5 "St Mary's Cathedral"s in England (ignoring the few dedicated to "the Blessed Virgin Mary") - is it Lincoln's? Truro's? Blackburn's? Middlesbrough's? the Catholic one in Newcastle? There'd be a need to disambiguate if they didn't just call it after the city.

St Paul's is the only English cathedral dedicated just to Paul, so there's no need for disambiguation on that front.

 

[Clip]

Part of it is down to the London-centric arrogance which assumes that 'everybody knows' that such and such a place is in London. Hence Piccadilly without qualification refers to London Piccadilly and not Manchester. St Paul's Cathedral is always know as such and not as 'London Cathedral': nobody refers to Lincoln cathedral, for example, as 'St Mary's' although it is.

There is no london centric arrogance as you claim but i never knew licolns cathedral was called st marys and im from newcastle so you learn something new every day