AS a shareholder in the DVR I received an offer to purchase shares at 13 
each from Value Investments back in June.

About a week after a brief letter was received from the directors advising 
shareholders not to sell.

I didn't, but it was a tempting offer!

The other day the dividend cheque arrived. However, no information as to how 
many shares Value Investments had managed to acquire was sent with this.

Does anyone know the outcome of the share tender offer??

John

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
www.irishseashipping.com - The online shipping magazine

"John"  wrote:


>AS a shareholder in the DVR I received an offer to purchase shares at 13 
>each from Value Investments back in June.
>
>About a week after a brief letter was received from the directors advising 
>shareholders not to sell.
>
>I didn't, but it was a tempting offer!
>
>The other day the dividend cheque arrived. However, no information as to how 
>many shares Value Investments had managed to acquire was sent with this.
>
>Does anyone know the outcome of the share tender offer??



The offer has now lapsed.  Value Investments has apparently increased
its shareholding to around 25%, not far short of the 29.9% above which
it would be obliged to mount a formal takeover bid.

I didn't sell my shares either.

> The offer has now lapsed. Value Investments has apparently increased

> its shareholding to around 25%, not far short of the 29.9% above which

> it would be obliged to mount a formal takeover bid.

>

> I didn't sell my shares either.


Thanks Tony

I wonder what Value Investments are up to?

Given that the company owns most of the property I suppose they realise that 
the real estate value at Kingswear in particular could be substantial.

If they come back with another higher offer, as this was their second, I may 
well cash in.

My main interest these days in DVR ops is the River Link service as my 
transport interests has migrated from rails to water over the years so I 
don't feel that attached to them.

John

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote:


>> I feel no great warmth for this railway, and certainly wouldn't lose
>> any sleep if an even more commercial enterprise took over.  I hope the
>> next offer is a good one, and that it comes soon.
>
>It lost its appeal when it became an almost 100% paid operation (I
>avoid the use of the word professional deliberately).


True, although it does claim to be supported by 50 volunteers.


>Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?


It inherited them from BR.  It was probably too much like hard work to
return them to GWR lower quadrants.

> >Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?
>
> It inherited them from BR.  It was probably too much like hard work to
> return them to GWR lower quadrants.


Yet other heritage lines started without any signalling at all have
reinstated semaphores. Perhaps it should be reclasified from a heritage
railway to another awful tourist attraction.

Perhaps there should be a minimum standard to qualify to be a true
heritage line. I.e. Not just steam locomotives pulling re-branded
MkIIs. They should be a microcosm of a past era. Historic buildings (or
recreations such as Kidderminster Town), appropriate signals (latice if
LSWR, lower quadrant if GWR etc) and vehicles (passenger and goods) to
match.

In article ,
m1ss_wh1te  wrote:

>> >Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?
>>
>> It inherited them from BR.  It was probably too much like hard work to
>> return them to GWR lower quadrants.
>
>Yet other heritage lines started without any signalling at all have
>reinstated semaphores. Perhaps it should be reclasified from a heritage
>railway to another awful tourist attraction.
>
>Perhaps there should be a minimum standard to qualify to be a true
>heritage line. I.e. Not just steam locomotives pulling re-branded
>MkIIs. They should be a microcosm of a past era. Historic buildings (or
>recreations such as Kidderminster Town), appropriate signals (latice if
>LSWR, lower quadrant if GWR etc) and vehicles (passenger and goods) to
>match.


No bogie coaches, four-wheelers (of the octagonal-wheeled variety
in GN territory), footwarmers and  pot-lamps, no continuous brakes,
iron double-head rail, used twice, no car parking (though you might
be able to arrange stabling for your horse)...

That should pack 'em in. 



-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
		"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
						(Peter D. Rieden)

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote:


>> >Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?
>>
>> It inherited them from BR.  It was probably too much like hard work to
>> return them to GWR lower quadrants.
>
>Yet other heritage lines started without any signalling at all have
>reinstated semaphores. Perhaps it should be reclasified from a heritage
>railway to another awful tourist attraction.


As I said a couple of posts ago: "I find the line is devoid of
any character - it is just another bland tourist attraction in an area
that is amply blessed with them."


>Perhaps there should be a minimum standard to qualify to be a true
>heritage line. I.e. Not just steam locomotives pulling re-branded
>MkIIs. They should be a microcosm of a past era. Historic buildings (or
>recreations such as Kidderminster Town), appropriate signals (latice if
>LSWR, lower quadrant if GWR etc) and vehicles (passenger and goods) to
>match.


But who would set the standards and, even more important, judge them?

> It lost its appeal when it became an almost 100% paid operation (I
> avoid the use of the word professional deliberately).
>
> Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?


I don't think the Dart Valley plc either when they were at Buckfastleigh or 
on the Torbay Line ever tried to be a heritage line.

I think the aim always was to run a commercial operation in the Great 
Western tradition. Quite a difference.

John
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
www.irishseashipping.com - The online shipping magazine

> I travelled on the Torbay and Dartmouth line in August after a break
> of some years.  It is a pleasant trip but I find the line is devoid of
> any character - it is just another bland tourist attraction in an area
> that is amply blessed with them.


I have probably travelled on the Torbay and Dartmouth line for around 10 
years. However, I have travelled on River Link to Totnes , the Kingswear 
Ferry and done a harbour cruise a few times in 2003/04.

I think the up and coming Dartmoor Railway based at Okehampton probably has 
more going for it.

John
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
www.irishseashipping.com - The online shipping magazine

On 9 Sep 2005 16:10:49 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:


>
>No bogie coaches, four-wheelers (of the octagonal-wheeled variety
>in GN territory), footwarmers and  pot-lamps, no continuous brakes,
>iron double-head rail, used twice, no car parking (though you might
>be able to arrange stabling for your horse)...
>
>That should pack 'em in. 

 
I can think of one uk.railway poster who'd like it. 

Oh, you only mean heritage lines. 
-- 
Arthur Figgis                Surrey, UK

In article ,
Arthur Figgis  <arthur_figgis01@invalid.bigfoot.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 9 Sep 2005 16:10:49 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>No bogie coaches, four-wheelers (of the octagonal-wheeled variety
>>in GN territory), footwarmers and  pot-lamps, no continuous brakes,
>>iron double-head rail, used twice, no car parking (though you might
>>be able to arrange stabling for your horse)...
>>
>>That should pack 'em in. 
> 
>I can think of one uk.railway poster who'd like it. 


Needlessly complicated. Who needs rails when ruts will do the job
perfectly well? And these new-fangled horses will never replace the Ox.


>Oh, you only mean heritage lines. 


Hmm. Given it was the 400th of .uk railways last year, maybe someone 
should try this :)

Moo!

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:01:00 UTC, "John" 
 wrote:

: If they come back with another higher offer, as this was their second, I may 
: well cash in.

Please don't. I suspect that if you - and enough others - do, you'll 
see the railway closed, ripped up and replaced with housing very 
quickly.

Ian

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:54:53 UTC, "m1ss_wh1te" 
wrote:

: Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?

Playing at being the Talyllyn?

Ian
--

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 18:54:15 UTC, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) 
wrote:

: Needlessly complicated. Who needs rails when ruts will do the job
: perfectly well? 

Brilliant!

Ian


--

I do think the only real reason for thier survival is thier location.
Other line up and down the country are far more atmospheric.

And please don't go OT with comments about Mr Brunel.

I imagine some new development could be constructed on some of the land and 
the railway continue to run.

Build up from the bay platform to road level at Kingswear. You could 
probably squeeze in some apartments there. :-))

I suppose the DVR's problem is it has a very small number of shares.
Its a pity they are no longer actively traded on the open market as they 
were up to around 1995/6.

One would get a good indication of their true worth then.

John


> Please don't. I suspect that if you - and enough others - do, you'll
> see the railway closed, ripped up and replaced with housing very
> quickly.
>
> Ian 

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote in message
news:1126274384.519320.210490@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > >Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?
> >
> > It inherited them from BR.  It was probably too much like hard work to
> > return them to GWR lower quadrants.
>
> Yet other heritage lines started without any signalling at all have
> reinstated semaphores. Perhaps it should be reclasified from a heritage
> railway to another awful tourist attraction.


And just what makes you so sure that colour lights have no place on a
heritage railway, given that they appeared some 50 years before the end of
steam? If colour lights are wrong, then any loco built after 1925 is also
wrong!

One person's abhorrence is a nother person's classic era. The GCR(N) is
working hard to restore the signalling to its late 1940s state, when the
section of the line was at its hey-day. The fact is, by then virtually the
whole run from Loughborough to Ruddington was colour lights, including many
classic types of colour lights that haven't existed on BR/Railtrack/Network
Rail for over 20 years. Are you saying that that part of history should be
consigned to oblivian "Coz semaphore is wot you gotta 'ave"?


> Perhaps there should be a minimum standard to qualify to be a true
> heritage line. I.e. Not just steam locomotives pulling re-branded
> MkIIs. They should be a microcosm of a past era. Historic buildings (or
> recreations such as Kidderminster Town), appropriate signals (latice if
> LSWR, lower quadrant if GWR etc) and vehicles (passenger and goods) to
> match.


Heritage railways can only represent the past. If you were to take your
principles to their natural conclusion, all heritage railways should be
wiped away because they are not staffed by people from that period, they are
limited to 25 mph, they don't carry real freight, they have many new
additions to comply with modern HMRI requirements...

Just because you don't like something or feel it is wrong, it doesn't mean
that it IS wrong. It just means that YOU don't like it. Personally, I love
the fact that the Paignton and Dartmouth Steam Railway is actually proving
Beeching and BR wrong - you actually can run a steam railway with mostly
paid personnel AND make a sizeable profit, too.


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 23:01:00 UTC, "John" 
> wrote:
>
>: If they come back with another higher offer, as this was their second, I may 
>: well cash in.
>
>Please don't. I suspect that if you - and enough others - do, you'll 
>see the railway closed, ripped up and replaced with housing very 
>quickly.



If that happened, I would probably give it a moment's thought ...

.... and move on.

The DVR Company have been monumentally arrogant ever since they took
over the Paignton-Kingswear line.  It is now a mere shadow of what it
could have been - a heritage railway that turned in a healthy profit.

The DVR Company have succeeded neither in making the line a proper
heritage railway nor in making a healthy profit.  They have ignored
the heritage aspect, except for a nominal commitment to use steam
locomotives, and have made only a very modest profit.

I would have been happiest if the line had become a proper heritage
railway, but in the absence of that I would have settled for a healthy
return on my shares.  I got neither.

What made it all far worse was the shabby way in which the DVR Company
treated the DVR supporters, and especially those who remained to run
the Totnes-Buckfastleigh line.

Anyway, I don't think the new owner would stop the trains.  I expect
they would make the best possible return on every square metre of land
owned by the railway, either by selling it off or developing it, but
still run tourist trains.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:15:28 UTC, Tony   Polson  
wrote:

: What made it all far worse was the shabby way in which the DVR Company
: treated the DVR supporters, and especially those who remained to run
: the Totnes-Buckfastleigh line.

Thanks. Can you point me to a site giving this shabby history - I'm 
obviously rather out of touch?

Ian

--

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:15:28 UTC, Tony   Polson  
>wrote:
>
>: What made it all far worse was the shabby way in which the DVR Company
>: treated the DVR supporters, and especially those who remained to run
>: the Totnes-Buckfastleigh line.
>
>Thanks. Can you point me to a site giving this shabby history - I'm 
>obviously rather out of touch?



Ian,

As far as I know, it isn't reported anywhere on the web.  There was a
very good report in a back copy of "Steam Railway" magazine that I
read last Saturday on board a train on the Great Central railway,
which explained it in some detail, but I cannot recall the date of
that issue.  

Basically, the DVR Company, a limited company, supported by the DVR
Association, a registered charity, purchased the Totnes-Ashburton
branch and ran the Littlehempston to Buckfastleigh section from 1969.
The section to Ashburton never reopened because the formation was used
for the new A38 dual carriageway trunk road which cut the line at the
north end of Buckfastleigh station.  The Ministry of Transport wanted
about 0.75 million to accommodate the Buckfastleigh-Ashburton section
of the line and this was out of reach at that time.

In the early 1970s, British Rail announced the closure of the
Paignton-Kingswear section of the former GWR and the DVR company
decided to lease it.  The company stated its intention to run both
railways for the foreseeable future, and support of the membership for
the acquisition was forthcoming, though not without reservations.

The DVR company concentrated its efforts on the Paignton-Kingswear
route and (in my opinion) starved the Buckfastleigh line of
investment.  Much of the valuable machinery was removed from the
workshops at Buckfastleigh and transferred to Paignton.  The best of
the locos and rolling stock also went to Paignton.

Eventually, the inevitable happened.  In the mid-late 1980s, the
Buckfastleigh line was shown in the DVR company accounts as losing
money, although this loss is hotly disputed by many, and the DVR
company announced its intention to close the line or sell it, giving
notice of its decision at a very late stage and giving interested
parties an unrealistically short period in which to mount bids.

Fortunately, enthusiasts were able to use the Dumbleton Hall
Locomotive Ltd (a preservation society dedicated to restoring ex-GWR
No.4920 "Dumbleton Hall") as a means of leasing the line (its articles
of association permitted it to run a railway!) and the South Devon
Railway was born.  But the DVR company asked for a very high rent and
the South Devon Railway struggled financially until a share issue in
2001 which enabled it to buy the line.  It is now on a sound financial
footing but is not especially well blessed with ex-GWR rolling stock -
galling in view of the fact that the DVR company sold so many of its
locomotives to other railways outside Devon.  

Ironically, 4920 "Dumbleton Hall" cannot run on the Buckfastleigh line
as it is too heavy.  :-(

Many of us who were members of the Dart Valley Railway Association
feel that the DVR company asset stripped the Buckfastleigh line.
Items of rolling stock that had been bought privately by the DVRA
and/or its members for the Buckfastleigh line were claimed by the DVR
company for Paignton, which then became a purely commercial
undertaking paying no more then lip service to the ideals of
preserving the character of the former GWR in Devon.  

I accept that there was always the risk of divergence of ideas on this
issue because the DVR company was always intended to be profitable,
even before the Paignton-Kingswear line entered the equation, whereas
the DVRA was more intent on the heritage aspect.  Many members of the
DVRA transferred to the charity supporting the South Devon railway and
there is still much resentment at the way the DVR company treated the
enthusiasts who helped to fund and operated the Buckfastleigh line
while it was still under DVR company ownership and afterwards in the
early days of South Devon operation.

I admire the determination of the South Devon Railway and its
supporters to build on and develop the original ideals of the DVRA.
However, I lament the shortage of ex-GWR locos and rolling stock that
would have given the Buckfastleigh line the true Great Western
atmosphere that so many of us wanted.

[If there are any inaccuracies in the above account, or I have
misinterpreted the situation in any way, I would be pleased to accept
factual corrections.]

My personal view is that the Paignton-Kingswear operation contributes
nothing significant to the heritage aspect of railway preservation,
and I would not shed any tears if it was paved over or built on.  For
that reason, I will happily sell my shares for as much as I can get.

m1ss_wh1te wrote:


> what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?


Why shouldn't a heritage line have these? 

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633114.html
(58 023 at Oxford, 10 Jun 1985)

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:56:29 UTC, Tony   Polson  
wrote:

: >Thanks. Can you point me to a site giving this shabby history - I'm 
: >obviously rather out of touch?

: As far as I know, it isn't reported anywhere on the web....

: Basically, the DVR Company...

Thanks very much, Tony. 

Ian

On 9/9/05 2:06 pm, in article i323i1lp2il5hc3vs7hp381en3sfb1id3i@4ax.com,
"Tony   Polson"  wrote:


> It inherited them from BR.  It was probably too much like hard work to
> return them to GWR lower quadrants.
> 
> 


I think these signals date from more recent times; but, elsewhere, wasn't
the GWR, along with the Liverpool Overhead, one of the first users of colour
light signals in this country?

Tony Polson wrote:


> The section to Ashburton never reopened because the formation was used
> for the new A38 dual carriageway trunk road which cut the line at the
> north end of Buckfastleigh station.


I believe that the preserved line did operate to Ashburton for a short
period before the road was built.

There were proposals to extend the line to a new station in Ashburton a
few years ago, but nothing has been heard of it since.  The cost would
be very high, and I think it's most unlikely to happen.

"Stephen Furley"  wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> The section to Ashburton never reopened because the formation was used
>> for the new A38 dual carriageway trunk road which cut the line at the
>> north end of Buckfastleigh station.
>
>I believe that the preserved line did operate to Ashburton for a short
>period before the road was built.


No, that is absolutely not the case.  A few trains ran to Ashburton
for publicity purposes, and were photographed in the beautifully
restored station, but the Light Railway Order was only ever obtained
as far as Buckfastleigh, and operations never included Ashburton.


>There were proposals to extend the line to a new station in Ashburton a
>few years ago, but nothing has been heard of it since.  The cost would
>be very high, and I think it's most unlikely to happen.


That was the subject of the article I read in the back issue of "Steam
Railway" magazine.

_____

I have been looking at the South Devon Railway web site, and I must
say I am most impressed at what the railway company and the supporting
charity, the South Devon Railway Trust, have been able to achieve
since completing purchase of the line in 2002.  Their aims and
objectives seem to be very much in line with those of the original
Dart Valley Railway Association, and the line appears to be operated
in much the same way as we had all hoped for, over thirty years ago.

Well done! to all at the South Devon Railway.

Ian Johnston wrote:


> : Also what is a heritage line doing with masses of colour light signals?
>
> Playing at being the Talyllyn?


Abergynolwyn is indeed far from how it was in pre-preservation days,
but *any* signalling - colour light or otherwise - on the TR is
automatically inauthentic as there was nothing (not even a one engine
in steam staff) in place until the early 1950s.

Given a need to cross trains at Abergynolwyn, I'm really not clear what
you would find preferable - a forest of semaphores, just as inauthentic
but rather more prominent? Flag signalling as at the other loops is not
feasible due to the length of the station and the very restricted
sightlines.

It would be lovely to be able to put signal A9 (the down inner home,
opposite the station building) somewhere slightly less prominent; the
location the inside of the curve means the signal does need to be
fairly high to be visible. I'm guessing that A9 is the one you object
to most, but I struggle to think of a practical alternative.

The other signals visible from the platform (A6a/b, the up starters and
A8a/b, the down starters) are all ground level and really pretty
inconspicuous. A5 (up home) is on a short post out in the woods and
takes some spotting if you don't know where to look for it; A10 (down
outer home) is bolted to a rock face and again is pretty inconspicuous.

The only other colour light is W5, the Wharf down home, which again is
not especially obtrusive (especially since the wooden post was replaced
with a scaffolding pole...)

Richard Huss
(Formerly of the TR's S&T department)

wrote

>
> Abergynolwyn is indeed far from how it was in pre-preservation days,
> but *any* signalling - colour light or otherwise - on the TR is
> automatically inauthentic as there was nothing (not even a one engine
> in steam staff) in place until the early 1950s.
>

Even if Sir Haydn had been compelled to erect signals, I can't imagine him
putting up with a Signal Sighting Committee. ;-)

Peter

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:11:38 UTC, richard.huss@gmail.com wrote:

: Given a need to cross trains at Abergynolwyn, I'm really not clear what
: you would find preferable - a forest of semaphores, just as inauthentic
: but rather more prominent?

That would do fine!

But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at 
Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
of a replacement, fine by me.

Ian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at 
>Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
>of a replacement, fine by me.



Seconded.  That monstrosity ruins my very favourite location on my
very favourite railway.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:30:10 UTC, Tony   Polson  
wrote:

: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
: 
: >But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at 
: >Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
: >of a replacement, fine by me.
: 
: 
: Seconded.  That monstrosity ruins my very favourite location on my
: very favourite railway.

It astonishes me that they a) designed and b) have kept something so 
horrible. Even if they weren't going for another stone tower - would 
it really have been so much work?- they could have come up, I am sure,
with a very much better steel one. 

I can't say that I was much impressed, either, with the linear 
scrapyard which seems to extent for at least a mile out of Tywyn.

In almost all other respects, I like the TR. It's a rather nice 
throwback to the 1970's, and I don't mean that as a criticism.

Ian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>It astonishes me that they a) designed and b) have kept something so 
>horrible. Even if they weren't going for another stone tower - would 
>it really have been so much work?- they could have come up, I am sure,
>with a very much better steel one. 


It looks like it was designed by an engineer ...  I can't think of any
other trade or profession whose members collectively possess such a
determined ignorance of aesthetics.  

Present company excepted.  ;-)


>I can't say that I was much impressed, either, with the linear 
>scrapyard which seems to extent for at least a mile out of Tywyn.


It never used to be like that.  I suspect the construction of the new
station building at Wharf meant that the yard had to be cleared.  It
used to be tidy until Pendre, which has always been fairly tidy for a
maintenance base.  


>In almost all other respects, I like the TR. It's a rather nice 
>throwback to the 1970's, and I don't mean that as a criticism.


I first visited in 1971, and the atmosphere is little changed.  The
tradition of stopping for refreshments at Abergynolwyn is my favourite
element of the "Talyllyn Experience".  

I recommend the scones.  ;-)

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:11:38 UTC, richard.huss@gmail.com wrote:
>
> : Given a need to cross trains at Abergynolwyn, I'm really not clear what
> : you would find preferable - a forest of semaphores, just as inauthentic
> : but rather more prominent?
>
> That would do fine!


Interesting; the S&T folks wouldn't exactly thank you for the extra
maintenance work, but that's another story.


> But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at
> Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
> of a replacement, fine by me.


I've no idea what plans (if any) there are, but will contact the
secretary of the Stations and Lineside Committee and try to find out.

Best wishes,

Richard

Ian Johnston wrote:


> But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at
> Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
> of a replacement, fine by me.
>
> Ian


If anyone would like to compare the old and new tanks, they can do so
here.

http://www.ng.cowgill.org.uk/TR/vintage/index0003.html

Andy Kirkham

"Andy Kirkham"  wrote:


>Ian Johnston wrote:
>
>> But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at
>> Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
>> of a replacement, fine by me.
>>
>> Ian
>
>If anyone would like to compare the old and new tanks, they can do so
>here.
>
>http://www.ng.cowgill.org.uk/TR/vintage/index0003.html



Aaaaaaarrrrggggghhhhhhh!  It's APPALLING!  :-(

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> No bogie coaches, four-wheelers (of the octagonal-wheeled variety
> in GN territory), footwarmers and  pot-lamps, no continuous brakes,
> iron double-head rail, used twice, no car parking (though you might
> be able to arrange stabling for your horse)...
>
> That should pack 'em in.

> Andy Breen ~ 	Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales


Dohhhhhhhh! Oi rekon as they ought to ave them compartments with the
slam doors an them roller bloinds on the winders, loik as wen Oi used
to go orff with Messus Perrrrkins an Doris for a nortty weekend in
Weston-Super-Mare when Dan was off on his Mangel Wurzel Society meetins
that warnt no such thing it were is fancy woman wot kept a pub in
Wolverhampton me ole pal me ole beauty. Aargh an them there luggage
racks with the springy string stuff to old yer bags in ye'd never guess
wot we could get up to up in them things Oi remember Doris bouncin orff
the picture of Bridlinton on the oppersit wall half way along the
Severn Bridge that were before that danged barge ran in to it.

X

walter gabriel His mark

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:31:25 UTC, Tony   Polson  
wrote:

: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
: 
: >It astonishes me that they a) designed and b) have kept something so 
: >horrible. Even if they weren't going for another stone tower - would 
: >it really have been so much work?- they could have come up, I am sure,
: >with a very much better steel one. 
: 
: It looks like it was designed by an engineer ...  I can't think of any
: other trade or profession whose members collectively possess such a
: determined ignorance of aesthetics.  
: 
: Present company excepted.  ;-)

I think you are beinga  little harsh. To my mind, some of the most 
beautiful creations of humanity have been the work of engineers. I 
offer you a) Concorde and b) the Pont de Normandie. Hmm. Is there a 
common thread here - after all, I reckon the most beautiful trains 
ever made are the first batch of TGVs ...

: >I can't say that I was much impressed, either, with the linear 
: >scrapyard which seems to extent for at least a mile out of Tywyn.
: 
: It never used to be like that.  I suspect the construction of the new
: station building at Wharf meant that the yard had to be cleared.  It
: used to be tidy until Pendre, which has always been fairly tidy for a
: maintenance base.  

It's tidy from Wharf to Pendre, then th everges are littered with 
rusty crap for a mile or so. Quite disappointing.
 
: >In almost all other respects, I like the TR. It's a rather nice 
: >throwback to the 1970's, and I don't mean that as a criticism.
: 
: I first visited in 1971, and the atmosphere is little changed.  The
: tradition of stopping for refreshments at Abergynolwyn is my favourite
: element of the "Talyllyn Experience".  

As I said, I like it too!

Ian

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:55:06 UTC, richard.huss@gmail.com wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:

: > But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at
: > Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
: > of a replacement, fine by me.
: 
: I've no idea what plans (if any) there are, but will contact the
: secretary of the Stations and Lineside Committee and try to find out.

I'll happily contribute 20 quid to a fund to replace it. Seriously. 
And more for the chance to take an angle grinder to the old one when 
it comes down. Also seriously!

Ian

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:28:42 UTC, "Andy Kirkham" 
 wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: 
: > But as a priority, get rid of that sodding horrible water tower at
: > Dolgoch. If you want to wall up whoever designed it in the foundations
: > of a replacement, fine by me.
: >
: > Ian
: 
: If anyone would like to compare the old and new tanks, they can do so
: here.
: 
: http://www.ng.cowgill.org.uk/TR/vintage/index0003.html

I think the old one has regained its tank since the 2001 picture was 
taken ... which only makes the new one look worse. Even some timber 
cladding would be a huge improvement.

Ian