On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]


Thanks for that, Mizter T. I remembered I should have cross-posted it
just after pressing the "Send" button. Too little sleep. :-(

On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)


Thanks for that, Mizter T. *I remembered I should have cross-posted it
just after pressing the "Send" button. *Too little sleep. *:-(

No problem - you were very on the ball to pick this up - I was just
make sure the good news was propagated to one and all ASAP!

On Sat, 8 May 2010 02:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)


Thanks for that, Mizter T. *I remembered I should have cross-posted it
just after pressing the "Send" button. *Too little sleep. *:-(

No problem - you were very on the ball to pick this up


My sources alerted me earlier in the day, but I couldn't say anything
until it was released to the press.

The shenanigans around Tim O'Toole's proposed appointment to Tube
Lines told me several weeks ago that something was afoot, so I delved,
and delved, and found out that something was going on, but no-one
could tell me what - they know it will go straight to uk.r (and to
uk.t.l if I remember!). So my antenna have been twitching for a few
weeks now ... ;-)


- I was just
make sure the good news was propagated to one and all ASAP!


Good news indeed. Very good news!

On 8 May, 11:16, Bruce wrote:

Good news indeed. *Very good news!

In real terms, what difference will this make?

On May 8, 12:01*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2010 11:16:46 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2010 02:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
No problem - you were very on the ball to pick this up

He was?

Well, I hadn't come across any suggestion of it - I'm not even
remotely in the loop of course.


My sources alerted me earlier in the day, but I couldn't say anything
until it was released to the press.

Given that there was an article in the Times which someone at Tube Lines
sent to me at work before 8am yesterday morning what was it that you
couldn't say?

The Times article was embargoed because of the election AIUI.

I was called at 2135 last night to say the deal had gone through and
Paul Waugh stuck something up on the Standard website at 2153.

A copy of the internal notice and TfL Press Release were posted to a
Yahoo group I belong to before 2230 last night.

The shenanigans around Tim O'Toole's proposed appointment to Tube
Lines told me several weeks ago that something was afoot, so I delved,
and delved, and found out that something was going on, but no-one
could tell me what - they know it will go straight to uk.r (and to
uk.t.l if I remember!). *So my antenna have been twitching for a few
weeks now ... ;-)

Oh really. *Only weeks. *Behind the times as usual then.

Good news indeed. *Very good news!

Well if you want to see people like me sacked then yes I suppose so.
Peoples' livelihoods are all wrapped up in this you know.

In and of itself that's not really a strong defence of the current
arrangements that appear to be widely viewed as rather flawed, and
that's a broad opinion that I think it's fair to say that you yourself
have voiced a number of times beforehand (I don't want to misrepresent
your views though). I do of course realise that this is all rather
close to the bone - we know about the 'efficiency savings' that
happened when Metronet got subsumed into the LU structure as a result
of duplication being cut out - and I would hope that LU realise
they've got an asset in you (and others) and that there aren't going
to be any compulsory redundancies as a result of the subsequent
reorganisation.

On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)

Would ik.transport.london be restricted to discussing the GWR and the
Thames Tunnel?

tom

--
made up languages, delusions, skin diseases and unaided human flight

In article . li,
says...

On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)

Would ik.transport.london be restricted to discussing the GWR and the
Thames Tunnel?

tom

No, should also include transport by any means to that university near
Uxbridge.

In message . li
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On May 8, 10:45*am, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2010 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

[original thread on uk.railway]
[x-posted to ik.transport.london]

Or indeed *UK*.transport.london (as opposed to IK !)

Would ik.transport.london be restricted to discussing the GWR and the
Thames Tunnel?


I think you'd get away with adding the Metropolitan Line.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/