Looking at a recording of today's Service of Remembrance at the
Cenotaph, it appeared to me that the wreath laid on behalf of Transport
for London wasn't in the "Roundel" shape I seem to recall it being in
previous years.

Was I correct in my observations and - if so - does anyone know the
reason for the change?

I always thought it an especially appropriate and moving shape for a
such a tribute.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

a) I didn't think it *was* in a roundel shape.

b) and 50s/60s LT Magazine back issues show it wasn't roundel-shaped
in the 50s or 60s.

Sad that the whole LT uniform iconography has been destroyed and
particpants are reduced to wearing obsolete hats and badges...

On Nov 12, 12:49 am, wrote:
a) I didn't think it *was* in a roundel shape.

b) and 50s/60s LT Magazine back issues show it wasn't roundel-shaped
in the 50s or 60s.

Sad that the whole LT uniform iconography has been destroyed and
particpants are reduced to wearing obsolete hats and badges...

Not to mention a complete waste of time and money. What exactly is the
difference between TfL and LT apart from the name? Nothing. Just
another pointless rebranding exercise that threw away 70 odd years of
history.

B2003

On 12 Nov, 11:02, Boltar wrote:
Not to mention a complete waste of time and money. What exactly is the
difference between TfL and LT apart from the name? Nothing. Just
another pointless rebranding exercise that threw away 70 odd years of
history.

No - LT was an organisation firmly steeped in running Tube trains and
buses, whereas TfL is an organisation which also manages roads, rail
across London, trams/boats/etc and the strategic planning of London's
transport needs. The rebranding is essential to convey that it's no
longer the same company doing the same thing...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message . com,
writes
a) I didn't think it *was* in a roundel shape.
Unless I'm going completely bonkers [1] it *was* shaped like that in - I
would say - the seventies and eighties and - I thought - more recently
still.

b) and 50s/60s LT Magazine back issues show it wasn't roundel-shaped
in the 50s or 60s.
I see.

Anyone else know any more?

Sad that the whole LT uniform iconography has been destroyed and
particpants are reduced to wearing obsolete hats and badges...

[1] Not beyond the realms of possibility, I concede!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message .com,
Boltar writes
On Nov 12, 12:49 am, wrote:
a) I didn't think it *was* in a roundel shape.

b) and 50s/60s LT Magazine back issues show it wasn't roundel-shaped
in the 50s or 60s.

Sad that the whole LT uniform iconography has been destroyed and
particpants are reduced to wearing obsolete hats and badges...

Not to mention a complete waste of time and money. What exactly is the
difference between TfL and LT apart from the name? Nothing. Just
another pointless rebranding exercise that threw away 70 odd years of
history.
Yes, I also feel that it was a triumph of design over substance and that
the term "London Transport" could have been used for the new "TfL".
The term after all had survived several other "reinventions" from LPTB
to LT to LTE to LRT and back to LT!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
Looking at a recording of today's Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph,
it appeared to me that the wreath laid on behalf of Transport for London
wasn't in the "Roundel" shape I seem to recall it being in previous years.

Was I correct in my observations and - if so - does anyone know the reason
for the change?

I always thought it an especially appropriate and moving shape for a such
a tribute.

Surely the wreath represents London Buses, not TfL?

Paul

On 12 Nov, 10:18, John B wrote:
On 12 Nov, 11:02, Boltar wrote:

Not to mention a complete waste of time and money. What exactly is the
difference between TfL and LT apart from the name? Nothing. Just
another pointless rebranding exercise that threw away 70 odd years of
history.

TfL's embrace of the roundel is indicative of an organisation that has
done anything but throw away it's history.


No - LT was an organisation firmly steeped in running Tube trains and
buses, whereas TfL is an organisation which also manages roads, rail
across London, trams/boats/etc and the strategic planning of London's
transport needs. The rebranding is essential to convey that it's no
longer the same company doing the same thing...

I'm minded to agree, though I can also see that the new organisation
could perhaps have taken on the name 'London Transport'. But you're
absolutely right to say that TfL is about so much more than LT was -
and LT certainly had something of a parochial attitude.

Incidentally before anyone blames this all on Mr Livingstone I don't
think the 'Transport for London' name had anything to do with him - it
was a decision made before the first Mayoral election, presumably by
the GLA civil service implementation team (or whatever they were
called), and thus presumably approved by the then Minister for London.

Mizter T wrote:

I'm minded to agree, though I can also see that the new organisation
could perhaps have taken on the name 'London Transport'. But you're
absolutely right to say that TfL is about so much more than LT was -
and LT certainly had something of a parochial attitude.

Incidentally before anyone blames this all on Mr Livingstone I don't
think the 'Transport for London' name had anything to do with him - it
was a decision made before the first Mayoral election, presumably by
the GLA civil service implementation team (or whatever they were
called), and thus presumably approved by the then Minister for London.

And until LUL became part of TfL, didn't London Regional Transport still
exist?
--
Michael Hoffman

John B wrote:
No - LT was an organisation firmly steeped in running Tube trains and
buses, whereas TfL is an organisation which also manages roads, rail
across London, trams/boats/etc and the strategic planning of London's
transport needs. The rebranding is essential to convey that it's no
longer the same company doing the same thing...

Convey to who? Do people paying a fortune for the tube or buses while
getting lousy service care if the company ultimately in charge is LT
of TfL? Unlikely. Besides which LT could easily have been given extra
responsibilities. Rebranding is most walks of live whether its some
manager renaming his team or CEOs or politicians renaming a government
body , is simply a way for people to make some big noticable change
without ultimately having to do very much or at the end of the day
actually accomplish anything.

B2003