by Jeff Smith
There was a news article many years ago in the New York Times about possible names which you could probably find in a news archive or the Times index. Maybe about 1982.
Peter Stangl or someone didn't like Metro-North or names of that ilk, he wanted a name that sounded more traditional. The name he suggested was Grand Central & Northern. Everyone liked it except it didn't indicate the railroad would serve Connecticut too. So they went with Metro-North.
That would seem to violate the same rule -- they substituted Metro for Grand Central but kept North (Northern) -- but I guess 'North' was ambiguous enough they could claim, 'Yeah that means Connecticut, too.'
I think the problem with Metro-Rail was that it wasn't territory-specific.