When the Crossrail project announced that it would be called the Elizabeth line, few realised it was the second attempt to have an Elizabeth line in London.
I came across an old petition on the government’s ePetition’s website calling for the Northern line to be renamed — as the Elizabeth line.
Submitted in August 2012, it garnered the grand total of ONE supporting signature, presumably the authors.
Despite that lack of public support, it received a formal response — basically, nothing to do with the government anyway, so don’t bother putting up a petition on the government website.
Although we came nowhere near having an Elizabeth line, the long running plans to split the Northern line into two separate services does beg the question of what they will be called when the split occurs.
Will one retain the Northern line name, and a new line appear, or will we get two entirely new names — whatever the answer, you can expect howls of outrage and anguish about whatever the decision is.
Feel sorry for the poor sod making that decision.
My bet is that the two Northern Line branches will become simply Northern Line and Southern Line. Simple, accurate and uncontroversial.
Northern line 1 and 2 would seem the easiest.
If the person making the decision is an enthusiast, do not be surprised if the Bank branch becomes the City and South London line.
I suspect though that it will either be the mayor or the marketing department who make the call.
If one does end up being named the Elizabeth line, I’m quite disappointed with the level of creativity that has gone into naming it!
I like left Twix and right Twix.
Can we not rename all the lines to “London Underground” in the same way that we just have one “London Overground” line?
There isn’t just one London Overground line, it is made up of a collection of lines in the same way that the underground is. They are just less widely known
North/South Line would be the most appropriate name. But don’t even THINK about it! In Amsterdam, they’ve been trying to create a North/South Line for he past twenty years and despite the fact that it has cost BILLIONS already, it’s still not finished! So I guess there’s a curse on the name.
I see no reason to “feel sorry for the poor sod making that decision’ as it will ultimately fall to somebody being paid an exhorbitant salary there so to do.
“Royal D” line
More difficult is what colours to use. Are there any distinct ones left?
I hate change. Northern Line has served for over a century.
Anyway why should things be called after
a person? It will aggravate some whatever the choice.
Northern Line 1 and 2 was a good suggestion from Nigel.
Then the colour need not be changed – perhaps a broken
line for the second branch.
It was first called the Northern Line in 1937.
Should we read a deeper reasoning behind the statement that One wanted the name to be the Elizbeth Line ? I never felt that She was a regular traveller on the Northern Line !
Charles Line, William Line or George Line – depending on how far you want to future-proof the name.
The Northern Line is unique and should not have its name changed, if this is the case may be the district line should have its name changed because it gets very confusing at Earls Court and technically the Central line can be classed at two lines as well.