At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

When one has bathed in Christ there is no need to bathe a second time
-- St. Jerome, on why washing is a vile pagan practice
in a letter to Heliodorus, 373 or 374 AD

David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

Not according to their web site.

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport, which
no longer exists.
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

Not according to their web site.

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport, which
no longer exists.
--
Michael Hoffman

It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist. It was a pointless change
of name.

umpston wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:17 pm, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
It is a museum about transport in London so "London Transport Museum"
remained apt even after LT ceased to exist.

Yeah, but the OP said "London Transport museum" [sic].

It was a pointless change of name.

I agree but it's equally pointless to complain about it.
--
Michael Hoffman

On 23 Feb, 15:58, David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

No, the automated announcement advising people to alight for the
museum has been in use continually since it closed, proving that not
only do these new announcements constitute over-provision (announcing
every station name in advance, despite everybody coping perfectly well
without LU doing so before), but that one also ends up less informed
by listening to them than by not!

John Rowland wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

Given it combines three unfashionable concepts, I'm sure it is only a
matter of time before it becomes the Oppressed Indigenous Persons'
Conflict-Resolution Interactive Visitor Experience. Or something.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Keith Raeburn wrote:
On 23 Feb, 15:58, David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young
lady^Wrecorded announcement was telling people to get off there
for the museum. I take it that it has re-opened then?

No, the automated announcement advising people to alight for the
museum has been in use continually since it closed,

Since you have apparently listened to it continually and are evidently
irritated by it, I assume you must have complained to LU/TfL about it.
What response did you receive?

proving that not only do these new announcements constitute
over-provision
(announcing every station name in advance, despite everybody coping
perfectly well without LU doing so before),

Given that London is a major international tourist destination, and
having noticed many tourists staring in bewilderment at the line
diagrams in the trains, I think it's likely that many passengers do
appreciate being told the next station name in advance. There are many
examples of over-provision in announcements, but this isn't one of them.

but that one also ends up less informed by listening to them than by
not!

In this instance I agree, but not generally.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Feb 23, 4:27�pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". *Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

wrote:

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism).

Is that really the reason?

How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

I don't usually say either, usually a London Bus.
--
Michael Hoffman