Naming conventions for train stations and lines

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123162099#Comment_123162099

First, look up what “terrorism” means. You’re reasoning from a definition that the rest of the world does not share. Unless you have amazing new evidence of a systematic targeting of non-combatants, stop throwing the word around. It doesn’t mean “people I don’t agree with politically”.

And if Constance Markievicz did shoot a policeman that would clearly be a murder, not an act of terrorism. But as I don’t recall any rail station being named after her (the topic of this discussion, remember?) what, exactly is your argument here?

An aside: only two unarmed policemen were killed in the Rising. One most likely by Markievicz, but the other? Shot while standing guard outside Dublin Castle by a man named Seán Connolly (no relation to James). Unlike the Markievicz case, there's irrefutable evidence that it was completely unprovoked, and there could be zero justification for that action. But, as he wasn’t an uppity woman, and he died later in the conflict, I guess it was okay. I think the Markievicz story stuck because a lot of people were bitter that she had “got away with” being involved in the Rising - she was sentenced to death, but this was commuted to life in prison as she was female, so she was still around to be released in 1917 as part of an amnesty by the British. Funnily, that same resentment never attached to the only other key figure in the Rising to be given the same leniency as Markievicz… one Eamon de Valera.

But this whole discussion does a good job of highlighting the dangers of naming things after people. At least we waited until 1966 to do the renaming here, allowing a good 50 years for any skeletons to come out, be examined and cleaned up. But think how many “Jimmy Saville” roads, parks and charities had to be quickly and expensively renamed so soon after that man’s death in 2011.

itsacoolday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123162028#Comment_123162028

A terrorist can be defined as unelected person or persons who use unlawful violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. The people of 1916 did use unlawful violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. You cannot say some people were terrorists because you disagree with their cause and other people were not because you agree with their cause.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123162597#Comment_123162597

Dear god. When you can look this definition up anywhere on the internet and see that you were wrong, why persist?

You were getting close with “intimidation”. Terrorism is the military tactic of targeting non-combatants in order to weaken the morale of the opposing power. Nothing more, nothing less. If the attack is confined to targeting an opposing military, to achieve a military objective, it is not terrorism. If a large share of the casualties are non-combatants, it can be argued that an otherwise militarily-justified action had terrorist motives, and it’s for things like this that we have the International Criminal Court.

Terrorism has nothing to do with elected versus unelected, lawful versus unlawful. Russia’s continuous bombardment of non-military buildings within Ukraine meets the definition of terrorism, even though these are the lawful (under Russian law) actions of the (sort-of) elected Russian government. There’s other examples in the news all the time, but I’m not wading into those cesspits on a thread about THE NAMING OF TRAIN STATIONS.

The Easter Rising, after whose participants the train stations were actually named, was a military operation conducted by a rebel Irish Volunteer force against the British Army. The “civilian” population of Dublin was not targeted by either side. Thus,it was not terrorism by either side. Non-combatants die all the time in armed conflict, and some are deliberately killed by combatants, but the distinction is between whether they were the targets of the actions or not. The commanders on both sides of the 1916 Rising did not target unarmed people. While both sides did kill unarmed civilians, this was a result of mistakes or lapses in discipline on both sides.

If you want to discuss actual terrorism, then somewhere else except here you could talk about three years later, when the IRA began what was perhaps the prototype of the modern terrorist campaign against the apparatus of British rule in Ireland, and there’s plenty of ground to accuse the British of responding in kind by recruiting ex-soldiers into the RIC and letting them run riot. And in the Civil War, later, both factions had no problem with committing terrorist acts. Maybe your evident lack of knowledge of Irish history has caused you to conflate these conflicts?

Calling people “terrorists” without knowing what that means smacks of lazy populist garbage-politics. And it’s got nothing to do with Dublin’s train stations. Personally, had I been there and been able to do anything about it, I’d have opposed the 1966 decision - removing the obviously Imperial names is fine (e.g., Kingsbridge), but we could have just renamed that station; there was no reason to change Amiens Street or the other stations, especially where there was only one station in the city or town. I’d have chosen St James, as that’s the part of Dublin it’s located in.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123162597#Comment_123162597

And pretty much every land the British occupied, they were unelected to do so.

At least until they’d genocided the natives so anyone who has an issue with 1916 and is offended by it can then have the chance to learn by studying history.

itsacoolday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123162800#Comment_123162800

If you learnt history, you would have learnt all the other European countries had colonies around the world. The point I was making was that all our railway stations were re-named after the rebels (call them what you want: as the saying goes, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist). As I flew in to Robert Gabriel Mugabe airport in Zimbabwe once (used to be Rhodesia, of course), I thought of the great Robert Mugabe, and wondered if when we will have a U.I. will Belfast Central station be named after the great Bobby Sands or someone like that. Mugabe was another man some people thought of as a terrorist and some people thought of as a freedom fighter.

Or else, in the unlikely case of a new flag and new national anthem, would all our stations be renamed? Cannot see it happening.

Interestingly, many of the train stations I have come across around the world, and I must have been in thousands, were named after places, not people. Either that or just called Hauptbahnhof meaning main / central station or something. Tiocfaidh ar la.

KrisW1001

@itsacoolday

Oh for **** sake.. put the bone down.

Absolutely nobody is proposing we continue the naming scheme adopted in 1966, so stop tilting at windmills.

Honestly, if your posts were in any way indicative of Unionist sentiment (which I don't believe for one second), then there'll be no unity of any kind until some sort of skin is grown. And lest you take me for some kind of Shinner, I personally would oppose a United Ireland unless at least two thirds of the traditionally Unionist demographic voted in favour of it: we had our time as a mistreated minority in an uncaring larger polity, so I wouldn't impose it on anyone else - not even the children of those who ran NI like a Protestant ethno-state.

(Also, there's no need for a new flag... why do you think a whole third of the area on our current one is orange? It's not for aesthetic reasons)

If you aren't interested in taking about naming of train stations, I'm sure there's plenty of tiresome political threads you could take yourself off to.

breezy1985

Well done lads.

Ye gave itsacoolday exactly what they wanted.

Maybe take a second and think before ye fall for a WUM.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123162597#Comment_123162597

You also can't say that they were terrorists only if they were unelected. You stuck this word in apparently at random, but it turns your definition into unhistorical nonsense. The concept of terrorism comes from the Terror; the word was literally coined to describe the policy of the elected government of revolutionary France.

Terrorism is a tactic; it can be pursued by the elected and the unelected alike. Similarly terrorism can employ lawful violence, as (again) was done in the Terror.

The point about terrorism is that it's the use of violence not to acheive a strategic objective, like the invasion of Normandy in 1944 or the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but to induce terror as a means of ensuring support for your political programme, by making people simply afraid not to support it. Arbitrary, random violence is characteristic of terrorism. The arbitrariness is the point — if you aren't identified with the perpetrators of this violence, and don't enjoy their protection, you may very well be the victim of it, even though you have done nothing to merit that; you are an arbitrarily selected victim, killed to induce feelings of awe and terror in others.

itsacoolday

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123165707#Comment_123165707

Yes, we all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, and one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. And of course some - not many - countries do re-name pieces of infrastructure after such unelected people who unlawfully used violence for political objectives, and who were not employed by a government at the time. When I was in Zimbabwe I was amazed, coming from Ireland, that only the airport there was named after Mugabe, and they did not re-name any of the railway stations there after someone in Zanla or Zanu-PF. Same in India. Stations generally not named after people there either, or in most countries. So naming conventions for train stations, the subject of this thread, is different elsewhere in the would and is very interesting when you look at it objectively and without bias. Tiocfaidh ar la.

Peregrinus

Airports are frequently named after political or historical figures — JFK in New York, Reagan in Washington, Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Marco Polo in Venice, O'Hare in Chicago; Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv; etc. So why should one kind of transport hub get named after people, and another kind not?

In fact it's not true that naming stations after people is unique or exceptional to Ireland. Denfert-Rochereau is in Paris; Manchester Victoria is in, well, Manchester; Anzen and Asano are both in Yokohama, and there are plenty of others internationally. Biden Station in Wilmington, Delaware, is even named after somebody who is still alive. (Now that is unusual.)

Where Ireland is perhaps unusual is in having a consistent theme for the naming of stations; they are named after people who were more or less signficant participants in the republican movement in the early twentieth century. Israel is the only country I know to follow a similar practice, where significant railway stations are named after prominent members of the Zionist movement. (Minor railway stations, not so much; they just get place-names.)

gjim

Nah, Ireland is exceptional.  Apparently there are 15 stations named after people in Ireland.  This is in a country with a tiny network.

I'm talking about naming a station directly after a person, not indirectly - like naming a person after a square or street that was already had a persons name.

So, Denfert-Rochereau in Paris doesn't count as its under Place de Denfert-Rochereau, which predates the station - same with Place de Victor Hugo.  Like calling a Luas stop Dunville (if Dunville was someones name?) or a future ML stop O'Connell.

You never see it around Europe for example, and are there any besides the Victorias in the UK?

Aligning stations names with their location makes lots of sense given their role as points of orientation within cites.  To the extent that often streets and squares are renamed to match the station - "Railway street", Bahnhofplatz, etc. or the equivalent - which aligns the way people refer to the station with its location.

So for me, I'd rather consistency with global practice. There are plenty of other things that can be named after people if you want to honour them.

Peregrinus

I'm talking about naming a station directly after a person, not indirectly - like naming a person after a square or street that was already had a persons name.

But that again raises the question — if you can name a street or a square after a person, why not a station? These are just different kinds of transport infrastructure, after all. So if streets, squares, airports, bridges, etc can all be named after people, why not stations?

You never see it around Europe for example, and are there any besides the Victorias in the UK?

Nitpick: Manchester Victoria is name directly after the Queen, but London Victoria is actually named for Queen Victoria Street.

But, yes, there are other stations in Europe named directly for people, thought I can't think of many. Amsterdam has a station named for Cornelius Lely. The station in Montpellier is named in honour of St Roch. You could argue the toss about London St Pancras, but it does in fact stand in the parish of St. Pancras, so arguably it's named after the parish rather than the man.

Aligning stations names with their location makes lots of sense given their role as points of orientation within cites. 

Naming stations other than for their immediate location is very common. London Waterloo, obviously, is nowhere near Waterloo; it's named for the battle. Many of the stations in Paris are named not for where the station is but for the places you can get to from the station — Gare du Nord, Gare de l'Est; Gare de Lyon, etc. The same convention was followed when naming Pennsylvania Station in New York City. Stations the US are often named after the railway company that built them ("Grand Central") or for the fact that they serve several different railway companies ("Union Station"); the names tells you nothing at all either about where you will find the station or where you can get to from the station. "Hauptbahnhof" is very common in Germany, but conveys no useful information at all — neither where the station is, nor where the trains go. It's a singularly useless way of naming a station. And some station names are completely off the wall; Waverley Station in Edinburgh is so named in honour of the novel by Sir Walter Scott. London Euston is named after Euston Hall in Suffolk; the station does not serve Suffolk, but Euston Hall was the country seat of the Duke of Grafton, the landlord of the land on which the station was built; the name is basically a bit of arselicking by the railway company's directors. (The district of Euston in London is named for the station, not the other way around.)

In short, there are many different bases on which railway stations get named. Naming then for their immediate location is common but there are many other conventions that have been, and are, used. If you don't object to all of them on the grounds that they fail to help you locate the station, it seems arbitrary to single out stations named after people for this criticism.

Zebra3

How did the thread end up here? 😵‍💫😵‍💫

gjim

But that again raises the question — if you can name a street or a square after a person, why not a station?

I've nothing at all against renaming streets, squares, buildings, sports stadia, etc.

I'm arguing that we should probably follow the rest of the world in aligning station names with known geographic features - streets, squares, districts/parishes, towns, etc.

If the most notable street near the station was called Markievicz Street, I'd be happy that the station was called Markievicz.

But renaming the station to Markievicz in isolation doesn't do it for me.

For example, I like that when I look at a map of Paris and spot the Place de Victor Hugo, then I know that the little M there is more than likely to be "Victor Hugo" metro station. When wandering in the area, an I see a sign for Pl. de Victor Hugo or Av. de Victor Hugo, I know that I'm in the right area for Victor Hugo, the metro station. Yeah because we don't use paper maps anymore (unless looking at signage), I can zoom in to find the name of what the M stands for - but this consistent way of naming stations is very helpful particularly if your not familiar with the city or area.

Neither am I saying it never happens anywhere, just that it's noticeably extremely rare outside of Ireland. The dual language signage (of which I'm in favor btw. - unless they commit atrocities against Irish grammar - well done Limerick Council) is enough I think without creating more confusion for those not familiar with our towns and cities.

It's just a helpful convention that the rest of the world nearly exclusively uses - and I think we should follow the convention as much as is practical.

breezy1985

Some are saying that it's only in Ireland that it's common and it's the standard naming convention here. That's not correct though.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we're all the stations not renamed on a single day in 1966. So if it wasn't the done thing before 66 or after then we are not arguing about what is the done but a thing that happened one time.

@Peregrinus technically Waterloo station is named after the bridge which was originally due to be called Strand bridge but changed in construction.

CrabRevolution

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123168746#Comment_123168746

I'm indifferent about the names but it's a stretch to say it'd be of practical benefit to rename them.

It's based on assisting the hypothetical visitor who currently struggles to locate Heuston station solely because it's called Heuston, but who would be able to find it if we renamed it to St. James Gate station or something. I don't believe such a person exists.

If they're unfamiliar with the area there's a 90% chance they're using google maps or some other electronic mapping that will give them directions to Heuston. If they're using a physical map then it'll just have Heuston marked on it with no need for any adjacent streets.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123143029#Comment_123143029

This is a joke, right?

gjim

It's based on assisting the hypothetical visitor who currently struggles to locate Heuston station solely because it's called Heuston, but who would be able to find it if we renamed it to St. James Gate station or something. I don't believe such a person exists.

I gave a specific example of my own experience in another city of when it was helpful. You've twisted into something ridiculous - a strawman argument.

I'm arguing against any further renaming - mainly responding to the suggestion to rename Tara St to Markievicz.

If the entire rest of the world largely follows a convention in train station naming, then it's worth entertaining the idea that there might be some advantage to it.

Economics101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123168885#Comment_123168885

Yes

loco_scolo

A few suggestions that stuck out to me as sensible are:

• change Heuston West to Islandbridge

• change Clontarf Road to Fairview

Heuston West is extremely misleading for Dubliners, people up from the country, and tourists alike. How many trains will be missed due to people underestimating the distance? It's a 600m+ walk to the main station...

Also, "Glasnevin" Metro/Dart really should be Cross Guns Junction or Brian Boru or Bernard Shaw or basically anything else. Type "Glasnevin" into Google Maps and note the area it shows as Glasnevin. Griffith Park Station makes far more sense as a "Glasnevin" station.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123169868#Comment_123169868

No on both of those. Cross Guns might be a catchy name of a road-bridge, but it really doesn’t help anyone with navigation; Brian Boru is a really poor choice, given that the only reason for using it will be demolished, and the only street by that name is far away in Clontarf. Even if there was no street in Clontarf by that name, the connection between the name “Brian Boru” and Clontarf is strong enough that it will just seem stupid.

I often wonder what data source Google gets its boundaries from. At least it recognises that Glasnevin starts at the canal, but the northern extent seems odd. Here’s an idea of how Dublin City Council feels about the matter (I’ve marked the location of Griffith Park and Glasnevin Metro stations):

[Source: areaboundarymap.pdf, Dublin City Council ]

But regardless of where you draw the boundaries of Glasnevin, the station is in Glasnevin, as it’s north of the Canal. The rationale for naming this one rather than the Griffith Park one as “Glasnevin” is that the DART station on the same site will be called “Glasnevin”. There really is no better name for that DART station than Glasnevin, and as it is a major interchange point, it should have the “bigger” geographic name.

The only other option for this combined station would have been “Phibsborough”, but that’s confusing given how far away the same-named Luas stop is.

For Griffith Park Metro station, I’d have made a case for “Botanic Gardens” - it’s as close to the Botanic Gardens as it is to the main part of the actual Griffith Park, and the Botanic Gardens is a major landmark… so much so that I have a suspicion that this stop will end up being called “Griffith Park - Botanic Gardens” on the passenger information systems.

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123170159#Comment_123170159

I was jesting with my suggestion of Brian Boru station tbh!! I'm not arguing that one, in the least.

For the same reasons you mention Botanic/Griffith, it makes far more sense that "Griffith Park Station" should be "Glasnevin Station". The area around the Met office is, by any measure, the most obvious Glasnevin Village centre.

The interchange station should be given a new distinct name. Every main station in the country is named after a historical figure, and this one shouldn't be any different. "Glasnevin Station" completely misrepresents who lives there. Drumcondra and Phibsboro will be far better served by the station than anyone living in Glasnevin.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123169868#Comment_123169868

There is nothing abnormal about the walk from Heuston to Heuston West.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123170699#Comment_123170699

Drumcondra already has a DART station, Phibsboro has a LUAS station. If you insist on Glasnevin for Griffith Park, you are left with Glasnevin South, Drumcondra West, or Phibsboro North, as the other options are taken.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123170699#Comment_123170699

Glasnevin isn’t a main station, though. Nothing will terminate here, although it will be an interchange point between services - something we’ve only had limited experience of in Dublin. As the two stations are co-located, they must have the same name. I really don’t think there’s a better name for the DART station than Glasnevin: it is very much the part of Dublin that it’s in.

On principle I dislike naming stations after people: leaving aside the Saville Scenario, names are abstract, so visitors have to remember the name of the station and the name of the area it serves. It’s okay if the station is named after a place which is named after someone (e.g., O’Connell Street, St James’s, St Stephen’s Green, but not, perversely, Pearse Street*), but calling a place “Joe Soap Station” tells you nothing about where it’s located, and that’s really the most important thing about any transportation stop.

__

* Pearse Street is technically a coincidence, of course, but I think the committee in 1966 knew that they couldn’t call this station anything else without being ridiculed. The street had already been renamed in honour of its famous sons decades before Westland Row station was renamed as Pearse Station. So, even though the station is absolutely not named after the street, and it’s incorrect to call it “Pearse Street Station”, the station does have an entrance on Pearse St, and it is the stop that serves the area around Pearse St.

Sam Russell

I think Na Fianna GAA club missed an opportunity when they objected to the use of part of their site for Metrolink.

If they had agreed, they could have asked that the station would be named 'Na Fianna' and got a huge boost in their visibility. It could only help their membership.

They also have training pitches further north on the proposed route.

Pity.

loco_scolo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123170842#Comment_123170842

The Local Electoral Area of Cabra-Glasnevin includes all of Phoenix Park, Islandbridge, Ashtown, Cabra, Phibsboro and a significant chunk of Drumcondra. The CSO and DCC both show Glasnevin and Glasnevin North to be outside of the Cabra-Glasnevin LEA, and actually in the Ballymun-Finglas LEA.

I'm sure there are historical reasons for the LEA names, but these should not be used to inform station naming when they make no sense or are misleading.

L1011

"Glasnevin North" is the egregious renaming bit there, the Glasnevin bit in the LEA is the real Glasnevin

McAlban

The Previous "Glasnevin" station at Cross Guns bridge is in fact in Phibsboro?

I'd consider anywhere north of Harts Corner up to Griffith Avenue Glasnevin (West of the Mobhi Road that is), Glasnevin North is just people who didn't want to live in South Finglas or South Ballymun 👀. the actual Townlands of Glasnevin, and Glasnevin Demesne are the real Glasnevin.

Just Call it what it is, Glasnevin Junction.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123174106#Comment_123174106

I quite like 'Cross Guns' myself. Too far south of Glasnevin.