|
Post by miff on Dec 10, 2018 18:57:35 GMT
I remember seeing a table at the Tate Modern loaded up with paint pots and decorating tools. I had to ask whether it was an exhibit and was told it wasn’t - but maybe it was - what if it was the artist I spoke to and he took me for a ride? I’m still not sure but if a work of art can make you wonder, rather than hitting you over the head with an obvious ‘meaning’ then that’s fine.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 10, 2018 17:37:07 GMT
O.K. So what is the 'important message' this montage of someones mouth telling us? It is far from essential for art to have an ‘important’ message, but this is what the artist says about it: art.tfl.gov.uk/projects/the-bower-of-bliss/
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 10, 2018 13:50:47 GMT
One might be, the next one might not. That’s ok with me.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 10, 2018 13:44:58 GMT
So long as it's art that I personally like. The only way to ensure this is if it is your job to choose it. One of the most important things about art is that it must be the artist’s vision and the curator’s choice and surprise. We can then decide whether we love it or hate it and comment accordingly - if it’s really bad it won’t be there for long. Not the kind of thing the public should be consulted on in advance, you’d end up either with something utterly bland or Boaty McBoatface.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 10, 2018 9:27:46 GMT
What else would you do with it ? 😀
|
|
|
Post by miff on Nov 21, 2018 7:55:15 GMT
I’m aware it is ruled out in the short/medium term but does anyone know if LUL have had any long-term thoughts about running heritage trains under ‘modern’ signalling systems?
|
|
|
Post by miff on Nov 6, 2018 10:06:53 GMT
I really hope they don’t try to reinstate that vastly overrated Arch thing that people seem to bring up (including a few stones from the bottom of the river) every few years.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Nov 1, 2018 15:26:18 GMT
Rebuild. Although the 230 includes D-stock shells and components it certainly isn’t D-stock any more.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Aug 26, 2018 7:31:32 GMT
Does this mean the proposal to run them under their own power is abandoned?
|
|
|
Post by miff on Jul 26, 2018 22:15:22 GMT
My question was intended to be about Sarah and future signalling upgrades. I’m aware she’s currently away.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Jul 26, 2018 15:32:12 GMT
What about Sarah?
|
|
|
Post by miff on May 30, 2018 22:01:00 GMT
I believe the reason for closure was simply a view from government (as it was LRT then not LT under the GLC) that consultancy was not a "core activity" for a public sector organisation and that it was a drain on the organisation. This was after many years of "indifferent" (being kind) performance on the tube and a push to flog off the bus businesses and introduce more private sector involvement into what LRT did. There was no sense that anything about the Underground was worth selling to other people. It was only 5 years on from the Kings Cross fire and decades of neglect were still being rectified and would continue to be for many years to come. Thanks. I wondered if LTI’s international credibility might have suffered, fairly or not, after the fire. And as you say there was a political steer away from public bodies doing commercial things. It’s now going the other way a bit.
|
|
|
Post by miff on May 30, 2018 15:13:33 GMT
When did LT International close, and why I wonder? The idea was the same I believe- selling consultancy services around the world backed up by the London resources and experience.
|
|
|
Post by miff on May 9, 2018 19:52:32 GMT
Since their primary purpose now is to run on the SSL's it males sense to keep them in a LT or Met livery. BR blue might be authentic for the stock but wrong for the railway they're running on now, especially when Sarah is at one end. But thank goodness they got rid of that horrible teak photo-finish.
I wonder what livery the saloon 45029 will appear in, if Eastleigh are ever permitted to finish the job.
|
|
|
Post by miff on May 5, 2018 14:20:48 GMT
I suppose the real question is whether they are headed for Booths or RAF Spadeadam (per the rumour). Ah well, they did well and it is over 57 years since the first one rolled on to LU metals, which is good going for anything really (in service or not). MOD no longer want them so its a trip to Booths for them. Parts are being collected by various parties for further use on various other trains and of course the museum. The A stock took its path as a bit of a farewell Tour. Detonators were laid to finish its run. Did anyone get photos or video of this final run?
|
|
|
Post by miff on Mar 22, 2018 17:41:51 GMT
In the context of providing new trains a survey, laser or otherwise, is pretty small beer.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Mar 21, 2018 14:49:49 GMT
It's interesting that when the AIT project was abandoned it was decided to overhaul the 1960-stock Pilot Motors for continued use with the TRV, rather than make use of these MPUs or the motive-power elements of the AIT. No doubt there is a very good reason.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Mar 14, 2018 13:24:29 GMT
The 1967 stock were not deemed suitable for the line, apparently due to the lack of cab doors Why does that make them unsuitable? Thanks, if anyone knows.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Feb 21, 2018 16:48:18 GMT
Surely if the line was bought "as is" then it is the owner's prerogative to dispose of any assets that are no longer required. I don't see the need for implications of impropriety. I don’t think there have been. However before the present proprietor took control the EOR company (originally called Pilot Developments) undertook, when they bought the line to restore a commuter service; failed to deliver it; and did very little restoration. They seemed much more interested in the property redevelopment of surplus land which, I presume, made lots of money. No impropriety here either, that I’m aware of, just a lot of stinky politics involving a number of people and organisations.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Feb 20, 2018 20:02:06 GMT
I researched this on Companies House not very long ago. It's a bit of a tangled web and I no longer have the notes I took, but the same name underlines everything. What I found doesn't match with what you may believe. The Companies house site is now free to use. It made an interesting couple of hours finding out. I’m familiar with the Companies House online setup, and the reports there are a matter of public record. The annual returns give the number of shares owned by each shareholder. For example the 17/11/2006 return for EOR Holdings shows that one person (who is no longer a shareholder or director; and is not the current proprietor) owned almost 46% of the company at that time and another four shareholders, three of whom are no longer directors or shareholders, owned smaller amounts. A year later the ownership was substantially different and that’s when exciting things started to happen. So I stand by my earlier statement although I’ll acknowledge I don’t know when the juice rails were removed or who decided to do it. By all means PM me if I’m missing something! Routing around in Companies House can be fun, but I appreciate it doesn’t tell the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Feb 20, 2018 12:08:11 GMT
I happen to know some of the people actually involved in the lifting of the juice rails on the EOR, the and the current owner of the EOR who, I think you'll find if you delve enough in Companies House records, traces back to the same person throughout its history. Being a Director of a company does not necessarily mean you own or control it. I believe the current owner was a minority shareholder and one of the EOR directors (but not Chairman) during the later period of the dark ages. Serious restoration of the line began only after he acquired full control in 2007.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Feb 19, 2018 17:17:38 GMT
The conductor rails were removed during the dark ages, before the present owner of the EOR took full control.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Jan 11, 2018 16:44:30 GMT
The idea of a TOC was unknown until 1993. Until then we had railway companies. There were a number of companies (e.g. the owner of the Forth Bridge) who owned railways but didn’t operate trains but I can’t think (maybe you will) of any company that only operated trains and didn’t also own (or long lease, in the case of the Shropshire & Montgomeryshire) a railway. Some railways also had running powers over a neighbouring line but that’s not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 23, 2017 21:23:28 GMT
There is a preserved battery loco, but I don’t suppose the batteries have been charged for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 19, 2017 17:07:08 GMT
A stock has been sold as of last month. We can’t afford the keep/maintain them and the LTM can’t exactly afford it either. We’ll all moan about how “shameful” it is, but at the end of the day, you have to look at how much has been descoped out of projects because of cost. I don’t know where people get this idea that we “make money” out of heritage events, because we don’t. When you take into account the running costs and getting staff to run the train, the consultation that needs to take place to implement the OSP; heritage runs just about break even. Whereas I respect your learned view from inside the organisation, Anna, I must respectfully disagree with the thrust of your post. Just because LUL/TfL can't afford it does not mean to say that someone else could not. As for 'make money', I don't think anyone is under the impression that heritage is profitable as a strictly business proposition, rather, that it is less unprofitable to have something that can have a means of its own income attached to it through tours or the like, rather than having to rely on a cut of admission fees from admission to a storage place. If there was ever any serious traction within LUL to preserve a set, or perhaps more important, seek external partners or owners for such in the name of preservation it would be great to know, and change the otherwise pessimistic tone I took. However, surely you must appreciate that the feeling among many people connected with the tube, both inside and out, was that it was internal apathy that ultimately did in any prospect of preservation. Please, tell me I am wrong. It would be good to know that LUL did as much as possible to find a group to look after it when they realised they could not afford it themselves? I just don't see it though. The COP stock, the Q stock, the 59ts (to name some) were all offered to private buyers. Was the A stock, or the C stock, ever offered to any group/individual other than a scrappage firm? Has any serious offer to preserve an A stock been turned down?
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 17, 2017 19:50:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by miff on Dec 15, 2017 15:23:15 GMT
Is the DRAT ready to take over?
|
|
|
Post by miff on Nov 17, 2017 16:50:31 GMT
Caption competition (2nd picture): What is the TRT saying to the AIT ?
|
|
|
Post by miff on Oct 13, 2017 7:58:11 GMT
Sarah has turned up at Eastleigh. Pics on Carl Watson’s photo site.
|
|
|
Post by miff on Sept 21, 2017 6:22:49 GMT
Interesting proposal. Sadly it looks like reuse of the closed platform space will permanently disconnect the Aldwych branch.
|
|