I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
appendix exists.

I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
an edition which contains the appendix?

GazK wrote:

> I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> appendix exists.
>
> I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> an edition which contains the appendix?


I'm re-reading the 1986 version, and it doesn't make reference to the
letter, and there is no appendix in this edition.

It goes straight from Chapter 12 - How Much Automation? to
Chronological Index Of Accidents Mentioned In The Text.

Try Amazon they have a 1960 edition. See 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/B0000CKL5A/used/ref=sdp_usedb/026-8094369-2151649


-- 
Regards

John

J.Bridgeman@BTInternet.Com




"GazK"  wrote in message 
news:1122209894.771256.227190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> appendix exists.
>
> I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> an edition which contains the appendix?
> 

"0.7ohm Drop Shunt"  wrote in message
news:1122211849.585598.194800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> GazK wrote:
> > I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> > my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> > written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> > says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> > fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> > appendix exists.
> >
> > I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> > an edition which contains the appendix?
>
> I'm re-reading the 1986 version, and it doesn't make reference to the
> letter, and there is no appendix in this edition.
>
> It goes straight from Chapter 12 - How Much Automation? to
> Chronological Index Of Accidents Mentioned In The Text.


I've got the 1978 edition, too. On page 17 (the third page of Chapter 1) it
says "For when the Government set up a Select Committee to inquire into the
new railways and report upon the degree of supervision required in the
public interest, George Stephenson wrote to Henry Labouchere, the President
of the Board of Trade, setting forth his own views on the matter. This
letter is reproduced as an Appendix to this book."
However, it isn't - Chapter 12 is followed by the Bilbliography and the
Chronolgical Index. Maybe it was never intended to include it, and the 1986
edition removed the reference to it?
In any case, presumably the 1955 or 1960 editions will include it, so it may
be worth looking for it in a library.

Mike

GazK  wrote in message
news:1122209894.771256.227190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> appendix exists.
>
> I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> an edition which contains the appendix?
>


I have it in the Pan 1960 edition (1966 printing). I'll scan it in and
textbridge it later.

Yep, mine does!
I have the 1966 edition with all appendixes in the back.

Said letter, sire:

http://www.daftmoo.co.uk/temp/gs-letter.JPG

It's currently 296KB. I can re-scan it bigger or re-size it smaller if
anyone wishes me to.

It does make for interesting reading. Enjoy!

Phil

-- 
Spam trap: Use my name only...

"Phil Holbourn"  wrote in message
news:1122216700.843859.62710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Yep, mine does!
> I have the 1966 edition with all appendixes in the back.
>
> Said letter, sire:
>
> http://www.daftmoo.co.uk/temp/gs-letter.JPG
>
> It's currently 296KB. I can re-scan it bigger or re-size it smaller if
> anyone wishes me to.
>
> It does make for interesting reading. Enjoy!
>
> Phil


It is very interesting, it's a pity no one from the BR Board read Mr
Stephenson's letter before deciding to purchase 14X's!

Tim,

I now have the letter - see
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=160 - but I would
love to have appendix 2, which is apparently the first requirements of
the inspecting officers of railways, 1858. Could you scan this?

Thanks to everyone who responded - Dr John Gough was first past the
post. Letter is at
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=160

Tim Christian  wrote in message
news:42e3a64d$0$3479$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

>
> GazK  wrote in message
> news:1122209894.771256.227190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> > my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> > written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> > says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> > fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> > appendix exists.
> >
> > I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> > an edition which contains the appendix?
> >
>
> I have it in the Pan 1960 edition (1966 printing). I'll scan it in and
> textbridge it later.
>
>


Now available at

http://www.isoplethics.co.uk/transient/rfd.html

Thanks; I now have Appendix 2 as well; see
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=161

"GazK"  wrote in message
news:1122223986.845449.60940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Thanks to everyone who responded - Dr John Gough was first past the
> post. Letter is at
> http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=160
>

Assuming that Red for Danger's transcription is accurate, it is interesting
that George Stephenson used the spelling 'breaks' rather than 'brakes'.

Peter

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:00:06 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Masson"  wrote this:-


>Assuming that Red for Danger's transcription is accurate, it is interesting
>that George Stephenson used the spelling 'breaks' rather than 'brakes'.


Just an example of a living language. Another example is the way
some older people spell connection connexion.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:16:54 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>Just an example of a living language. Another example is the way
>some older people spell connection connexion.


I recall seeing somewhere that connexion is the "proper" spelling.
Perhaps it has gained too many French Connections to be acceptable
these days. My old supervisor (Dorothy Hodgkin, God bless her) always
used connexion.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

yyOn Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:21:37 +0100, Terry Harper
 wrote:


>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:16:54 +0100, David Hansen
> wrote:
>
>>Just an example of a living language. Another example is the way
>>some older people spell connection connexion.
>
>I recall seeing somewhere that connexion is the "proper" spelling.
>Perhaps it has gained too many French Connections to be acceptable
>these days. My old supervisor (Dorothy Hodgkin, God bless her) always
>used connexion.


In terms of "seniority" the OED seems to support that (with connection
derived from connexion) although its statement that the "x" version is
"most used in England" wouldn't seem to be currently correct.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:38:46 +0100, gitfinger wrote:


> It is very interesting, it's a pity no one from the BR Board read Mr
> Stephenson's letter before deciding to purchase 14X's!


You mean, in view of his comments that six-wheelers are safer and more
comfortable than four-wheelers? 

I doubt 6w's ever were safer than 4w's, and certainly one of the most
uncomfortable and quease-making rail rides I've ever had was in a 6w at
Haven Street. But you need to note that GS's comments are also made in
context of no trains running at over 40mph. I've done Leeds-Morecambe in
a 142, with silky-smooth stretches of 60+ mph. (Mind you, the Carnforth
curve is a bit of a tooth-jangler.)
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683683.html
(53099 (Class 116) at Birmingham New Street, Jun 1985)

Charles Ellson wrote:


> In terms of "seniority" the OED seems to support that (with connection
> derived from connexion) although its statement that the "x" version is
> "most used in England" wouldn't seem to be currently correct.


Then of course there's Connexxion, the Dutch bus-operating branch
of Connex.

Another one to file in this sexion of your collexion, although
you may get a rejexion from your spelling checker.

Charlie

In article , Terry Harper 
wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:16:54 +0100, David Hansen
>  wrote:
> 
> >Just an example of a living language. Another example is the way
> >some older people spell connection connexion.
> 
> I recall seeing somewhere that connexion is the "proper" spelling.
> Perhaps it has gained too many French Connections to be acceptable
> these days. My old supervisor (Dorothy Hodgkin, God bless her) always
> used connexion.


And the PO/BT standard spelling has always been connexion.

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

In message , David Hansen 
 writes

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:00:06 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
>Masson"  wrote this:-
>
>>Assuming that Red for Danger's transcription is accurate, it is interesting
>>that George Stephenson used the spelling 'breaks' rather than 'brakes'.
>
>Just an example of a living language. Another example is the way
>some older people spell connection connexion.


And Railway Station instead of Train Station...

Mike

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:50:58 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Then of course there's Connexxion, 

Yep.

>the Dutch bus-operating branch
>of Connex.


I don't believe they have anything to do with Connex.

http://www.connexxion.nl/website/subpage.asp?id=66&command= 
(my Dutch is very limited) suggests they aren't owned by anyone in
particular.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:gturihiwjg09.hsi1rafx1kh6$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:38:46 +0100, gitfinger wrote:
>
> > It is very interesting, it's a pity no one from the BR Board read Mr
> > Stephenson's letter before deciding to purchase 14X's!
>
> You mean, in view of his comments that six-wheelers are safer and more
> comfortable than four-wheelers?
>
> I doubt 6w's ever were safer than 4w's, and certainly one of the most
> uncomfortable and quease-making rail rides I've ever had was in a 6w at
> Haven Street. But you need to note that GS's comments are also made in
> context of no trains running at over 40mph. I've done Leeds-Morecambe in
> a 142, with silky-smooth stretches of 60+ mph. (Mind you, the Carnforth
> curve is a bit of a tooth-jangler.)


Have you ever experienced a ride on one when it starts oscillating? Now that
is frightening when you get blurred vision due to shaking so much! If
everything is set up correctly and the track is in good condition (which it
normally isn't) then you would get a good ride, then again under those
circumstances you would probably get a decent ride on a platelayers trolley!

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:57:31 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:50:58 +0100, Charlie Hulme
>  wrote:
> 
> >Then of course there's Connexxion, 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> >the Dutch bus-operating branch
> >of Connex.
> 
> I don't believe they have anything to do with Connex.
> 
> http://www.connexxion.nl/website/subpage.asp?id=66&command= 
> (my Dutch is very limited) suggests they aren't owned by anyone in
> particular.


Their annual reports are available in English, linked from
<http://www.connexxion.nl/website/subpage.asp?id=31&command=&subid=1232>
and this years directly at
<http://www.connexxion.nl/cms/data/images/23/JV2004_eng2.pdf> but I've
yet to find anything about ownership in the current one.

It doe make an interesting comparison to those UK annual reports I
have read, though. Can you imagine a UK annual report having a section
on sickness absence which started with the words "Absenteeism is,
first and foremost, an unpleasant experience for the members of staff
concerned."?

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:36:29 +0100, gitfinger wrote:

> "Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
>> I've done Leeds-Morecambe in a 142, with silky-smooth stretches of
>> 60+ mph. (Mind you, the Carnforth curve is a bit of a
>> tooth-jangler.)
> 
> Have you ever experienced a ride on one when it starts oscillating? Now that
> is frightening when you get blurred vision due to shaking so much!


If what you call "oscillating" is the same as what I understand by
"hunting", then I've never had that in a Pacer, or indeed in any other
rail vehicle for about a decade. Plenty of experience of it in Mk1
vehicles, though. As you surmise, that's definitely a track thing. 

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633073.html
(50 023 at Basingstoke, 10 May 1985)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:10 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>It doe make an interesting comparison to those UK annual reports I
>have read, though. Can you imagine a UK annual report having a section
>on sickness absence which started with the words "Absenteeism is,
>first and foremost, an unpleasant experience for the members of staff
>concerned."?


Quite.

I've often thought of the Netherlands as a very "sorted" country.
Things like that just serve to back that opinion up.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:40:12 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>If what you call "oscillating" is the same as what I understand by
>"hunting", then I've never had that in a Pacer, or indeed in any other
>rail vehicle for about a decade. Plenty of experience of it in Mk1
>vehicles, though. As you surmise, that's definitely a track thing. 


There is a kind of resonant vertical oscillation that you can get on a
142 at a given speed, where some sort of frequency in the track and
engine come together with the natural frequency of something in the
body and give a very unpleasant up and down vibration most unlike the
usual 142 sway and bounce (which I don't really find unpleasant).  Not
had it a lot, but I have experienced it.  I think it seems to occur on
CWR at around 65-70mph.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 21:55:10 +0100, Ross wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:57:31 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
> , seen in uk.railway:
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:50:58 +0100, Charlie Hulme
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > >Then of course there's Connexxion, 
> > 
> > Yep.
> > 
> > >the Dutch bus-operating branch of Connex.
> > 
> > I don't believe they have anything to do with Connex.
> > 
> > http://www.connexxion.nl/website/subpage.asp?id=66&command= 
> > (my Dutch is very limited) suggests they aren't owned by anyone in
> > particular.
> 
> Their annual reports are available in English, linked from
> <http://www.connexxion.nl/website/subpage.asp?id=31&command=&subid=1232>
> and this years directly at
> <http://www.connexxion.nl/cms/data/images/23/JV2004_eng2.pdf> but I've
> yet to find anything about ownership in the current one.


Found it, eventually, under "Accounting Policies"(!) on Page 62 of the
2004 annual report:-

"Connexxion Holding NV is a company limited by shares incorporated
under the laws of the Netherlands. All shares are held by the Dutch
State."

So, definitely not a Connex Group operation.
-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

> >some older people spell connection connexion.
>
> And Railway Station instead of Train Station...


And "Tickets must be shewn/shown at the barrier"

Ross wrote:


> "Connexxion Holding NV is a company limited by shares incorporated
> under the laws of the Netherlands. All shares are held by the Dutch
> State."
> 
> So, definitely not a Connex Group operation.


Yet another thing I've learned from uk.railway! Apologies for the
error.

Interesting that it's in effect a nationalised organisation. Very
good services they run too, IME.

Charlie

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:59:10 +0100, Charlie Hulme wrote in
<dc51hi$27tr$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> 
> > "Connexxion Holding NV is a company limited by shares incorporated
> > under the laws of the Netherlands. All shares are held by the Dutch
> > State."
> > 
> > So, definitely not a Connex Group operation.
> 
> Yet another thing I've learned from uk.railway! Apologies for the
> error.


I think virtually everyone will have assumed the same thing as you -
it just seems so obvious, doesn't it? I thought that there must be at
least _some_ connection with Connex, even if the company wasn't wholly
owned by them. I was wrong too...
 


> Interesting that it's in effect a nationalised organisation. Very
> good services they run too, IME.


I was surprised to find that it was a state-owned operation; I'd
assumed that (regardless of ownership) it was a private company
operating services franchised by the state.

I think it really is time for me to pay a visit to .nl. Maybe whilst
the zoemerzwerftour tickets are available (cheap PT day tickets, valid
on all buses, trams etc but not trains, for EUR8,60).

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

In message , David Hansen 
 writes

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:00:06 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
>Masson"  wrote this:-
>
>>Assuming that Red for Danger's transcription is accurate, it is interesting
>>that George Stephenson used the spelling 'breaks' rather than 'brakes'.
>
>Just an example of a living language.


I spotted one of those ugly 'lorry parked in a field next to the 
motorway' adverts yesterday that offered a number to call for 'braking 
traffic news'.

I suppose that is exactly what is wanted - news of where the traffic is 
braking.
-- 
Goalie of the Century

GazK (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
:


> I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> appendix exists.
> 
> I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> an edition which contains the appendix?


Why would these appendix(es) have been suppressed in later editions?
Dumbing-down or censorship?
-- 
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

"Prai Jei"  wrote

>
> Why would these appendix(es) have been suppressed in later editions?
> Dumbing-down or censorship?


More likely the publishers decided the price at which they thought the book
would sell, and how many pages they could afford and still turn a profit.
Shucks, the appendices won't fit - sorry, author, we'll have to leave them
out.

Peter

In message <dcb4k2$r7l$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
          Prai Jei  wrote:


> GazK (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> :
> 
> > I am re-reading the classic "Red for Danger" by L T C Rolt as part of
> > my railways archive project, and on page 17 it refers to a letter
> > written by George Stephenson to the president of the Board of Trade. It
> > says that "this letter is reproduced as an appendix to this book". In
> > fact in my edition (1978, with the update by Kichenside) no such
> > appendix exists.
> > 
> > I would very much like to have a copy of this letter. Does anyone have
> > an edition which contains the appendix?
> 
> Why would these appendix(es) have been suppressed in later editions?
> Dumbing-down or censorship?


If no one else has offered the appendices are in my copy (Pan 1966).  I would
be happy to copy it out for you but you'll have to wait till next week as I'm
just off for the weekend (working!).

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>