The new museum is *very* disappointing. Acres of unused floorspace,
indeed every refit since 1980 has seen more large exhibits removed.
Just four buses - a B-type, RM, DMS and rather untypical TF. No RT-
family type which in one form or other equalled the Routemasters 50
years at London 's service, and I noted two incorrect exhibit captions
without really looking. There is plenty of political correctness on
show here now, lots of emphasis on Caribbean recruitment and the
mannequin bus driver of DMS 1 is, of course, a woman. And why not,
"representing the diversity of the London TFL serves etc"? Except of
course that DMS 1 is portrayed in its 1971 "first day in service"
mode, no adverts and blinded for route 220. Yet there weren't any
female LT bus drivers until 1975 because the organisation wouldn't
allow them until forced to by the 1974 Sex Discrimination Act! Oh, and
she's wearing grey uniform and these didn't come in until 1974 either!
Maybe it's not nice to realise that LT once considered women unfit for
all but the lowest grades, but to suggest otherwise is falsifying
history! Next to the Q Stock car is a nice display of traditional LT
1950s/50s guard's equipment - red & green flags, door control key,
whistle and oil lamp, but incongruously also including a metal "J-door
key" (used to access train cabs) which didn't appear until the
mid-80s!!! Lots of nods to TFL's new responsibilities - cycling, taxis
and boats - which hardly have any relevance to the museum's core
interests surely? Ditto traffic lights now sit on the main floor, but
boring bog-standard modern versions rather than black & white banded
early examples with "stop" and "go" respectively on the red and green
lenses. A huge area is given over another inclusive "world cities"
montage, when LT has enough design heritage to cover such a space 1000
times over. Considerable space is also taken up by various "kids"
zones on several levels, and much of the whole museum seems to be
aimed at children with various "activity" features (some of which even
work!). If you're interested in such esoteric subjects as tickets,
ticket machines, e-plates, train destination plates, signage, cap
badges or staff uniforms, you'll find little or nothing to interest
you here (indeed for such a hugely uniformed organisation, there are
only about two or three LT cap badges in the whole place and probably
more on e-bay at any given time!). Yes much of the "missing" material
can be seen at Acton "Depot" store but this doesn't excuse its
omission at Covent Garden . Clearly, it is no longer the " London
Transport Museum " (i.e. the museum of LT the organisation) but if it
is now the " London transport museum" (i.e. the museum of transport
*in* London ), they why are not the suburban operations of the SR and
LNER not given their due credit? And when it comes to influence on the
lives of Londoners, a Mk1 Ford Cortina (built in London, by Londoners,
and the plant LT buses served) would be more relevant than, say,
banging on about up-market yuppie river services? Presumably it is
actually the " Museum of Transport *for* London " although seeking not
to trade under that name. Indeed one new display makes sure the
current head of TFL (i.e. Ken Livingstone) and his team get a glowing
report in a way that was never ever done for current personalities in
the days of LRT and LT. I'm not sure what the museum is supposed to
be for these days and I'm not sure they do either... To paraphrase an
old V&A advert "an ace shop with a naff museum attached".

On 27 Nov, 02:56, David of Broadway
wrote:

I also thought of Aldwych, but Aldwych only has one track (correct?), and
new lifts would need to be installed to provide access (which I believe
was the reason it closed in 1994 in the first place).

There are a couple of similarities between Aldwych and Court Street,
the location of the Brooklyn museum. Both are the terminus of a short
line which operated as a shuttle service, but the stations themselves
are very different. Aldwych is a deep-level tube station, with only
a small ticket office at street level. Underground, and it's down a
lot of steps, there's one quite short platform, in a small diameter
bored tunnel, and the long-disused one which I've never actually seen,
but would imagine is quite similar. There are some very small,
cramped connecting passages. Court Street has nothing at Street
level, but a large mezzanine level reached by a short flight of stairs
from the street entrance. This level is used for the ticket office,
and the smaller exhibits, some of which are quite large; I think there
may also be a small lecture theatre, but I'm not sure. Down another
short flight of stairs is the platform level, with a wide island
platform with Subway vehicles, larger than our surface stock ones,
exhibited on the tracks on both sides. As is typical of New York the
platforms are considerably longer than is normal in London. I think
it would be difficult to use Aldwych as a museum site.

On Nov 26, 4:42 pm, "Richard J." wrote:

.. except that it does get used from time to time

Daily.

--
Nick

In article ,
(John Rowland) wrote:

David of Broadway wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:44:09 +0000, John Rowland wrote:

David of Broadway wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:07:38 +0000, John Rowland wrote:

repeating myself There are two soon-to-be-unused tracks
stretching from Farringdon to Moorgate, passing a short walk from
the Museum Of London. The tracks are probably large enough for
everything - I'm sure even A-stock would fit.

Ah - excellent point! That gets us static displays on two tracks
at
Moorgate and Barbican - much better than Charing Cross alone. Will
the tracks remain connected to the Thameslink line at Farrington?

No, but since they are alongside the Met, that wouldn't be a
problem. I was thinking that one track would be turned into a
"platform" stretching from Farringdon to Moorgate, and the other
would be filled with trains.

An interesting idea, if feasible.

I take it there's a track connection with the Met?

No. There would be no point - anyway, it doesn't have fourth rail
electrification.

Surely there was once a connection at Moorgate, so one could be
reinstated there quite easily?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
Why? The average public, including the children, would much
prefer to see more vehicles.

Really? The biggest problem with the old layout (for me at least) was
that it had too many very similar buses/trams, and it just got dull
very quickly. The current selection seems about right given the size
of the space. I just wish the non-vehicle exhibits were more
imaginative.

It is still extraordinary that a representative of by far the largest
family of buses, the 6000-odd RTs, is not there. The last one was retired
in 1979, so plenty of people visiting the museum would remember them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
() wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:07:38 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

So I dare suggest the Charing Cross annexe isn't at the top of
the LT Museum curator's to-do list!

A tube platform is unsuitable anyway, because the surface stock
wouldn't fit, and you could only have a dozen or so carriages in a
two platform station.

repeating myself There are two soon-to-be-unused tracks stretching
from Farringdon to Moorgate, passing a short walk from the Museum Of
London.

Was not Moorgate used once before to display a historical item. One
of the City and South london Locos? trouble was the Hun broke it.

Stuffed and mounted on a plinth, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
Why? The average public, including the children, would much
prefer to see more vehicles.

Really? The biggest problem with the old layout (for me at least) was
that it had too many very similar buses/trams, and it just got dull
very quickly. The current selection seems about right given the size
of the space. I just wish the non-vehicle exhibits were more
imaginative.

It is still extraordinary that a representative of by far the largest
family of buses, the 6000-odd RTs, is not there. The last one was
retired in 1979, so plenty of people visiting the museum would
remember them.

Agreed, particularly as they've managed to find room for one of the awful
DMS class.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message
, Mr
Thant writes
Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
Why? The average public, including the children, would much prefer to
see more vehicles.

Really? The biggest problem with the old layout (for me at least) was
that it had too many very similar buses/trams, and it just got dull
very quickly. The current selection seems about right given the size
of the space. I just wish the non-vehicle exhibits were more
imaginative.

Right, as the person that started this thread (!), I've now been to the
Museum to see for myself. (I actually went last Wednesday but this is
the first chance I've had to write down my impressions.)

There was a queue to get in, although that vanished quite quickly when
it transpired that it was a group (c15 young-ish US visitors).

My first reactions weren't good. The "World Cities" "gallery" is a
complete waste of space. Although there might (*might*) be some merit
in comparing public transport in different cities, this is a triumph of
form over purpose. Flickering videos and walls decorated with parts of
metro maps do not explain transport in different cities.

Signposting towards the lift (and therefore the natural way round0
seemed temporary or "added on" since the place had opened. How can the
visitor route not have been properly marked from the start!?

Then there was the lift. We had to wait for quite a while and I began
to wonder what this would be like when *really* busy. When the lift
did come, the aforementioned group shuffled in.......only to have the
"car overloaded" sign come up. Some of them shuffled out.......and
still it said "car overloaded". Eventually, the lift was barely half
full and the doors shut. When the lift returned, the other half of the
group shuffled in and as some of the rest of us followed.......the "car
overloaded" sign came up again. I gave up and went off in search of
the stairs.

Arriving at the top, I was more impressed. Clearly a lot of thought
has gone into explaining the London of the early 19th century which
spawned Shillibeer and his Omnibus. Top Marks.

Heading down, I was also pleased by the Metropolitan display and the way
in which the need for underground railways was felt so early in London.
I was even more pleased to see the concept of "MetroLand" covered so
well. This is an incredibly important part of London's past and one in
which the new Museum is a marked improvement.

And so down to ground level. The tubes, from the Padded Cell to the
mid twentieth century stuff were good and the use of technology to
project the posters on to the ground was - I thought - eye catching and
informative at the same time. There also seems more space in the
display cases for things.

Then on to road transport. Ah.

I can't disguise the disappointment I felt here. The reduction in road
vehicles on display in just - I think - jaw-dropping. No RT? Only
one tram (and the West Ham example rather than an LCC/LT one?!).

It was good to see a DMS (after all, this too was an important part of
the history of the bus in London) but so much of the ground floor seemed
given over, well, nothing. That huge map display in the centre didn't
inform me of very much and - even if it did - it wasn't worth
sacrificing vehicles for.

Despite what people may or may not think, one of the principle reasons
people go to Museums is to see *things*, not *displays*. Displays can
be good (as many here are) but to "improve" the place by reducing the
exhibits is to me a victory for consultants over customers. Young or
old, domestic or foreign, transport enthusiast or layman, people go to
Covent Garden to see old buses trams and trains and I feel there should
be more of them. As, you may recall, there once were. Remember the
opening in 1980 anyone?

The shop, of course, has been open for some time. One big improvement
though is the new guide book which has appeared. This is brilliantly
written, well illustrated and very well priced. I can't recommend it
highly enough.

And on that positive note I'll end. A lot about the new museum is good
and some of the problems (like the signage and lift) can be sorted out.
Others, like the waste of space and lack of vehicles can't be and it
made me sad.

6/10.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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