On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:10:56 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:



We tried asking on an official visit, and it was made very clear that
there was not any chance at all, even when it was still operational.

In my experience it was quite easy to visit when it was operational.
The first time I went I rang in the morning and went to Mount Pleasant
in the afternoon. I went to Paddington when it was opened for an
anniversary event, MP was opened on the same occasion. I once went to
an event at the King Edward building, the old GPO HQ, when the guests
had the chance to visit the railway as well. Whilst I was pleased to
visit stations other than Mount Pleasant they all looked the same.

On 22/04/2011 16:53, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:10:56 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:



We tried asking on an official visit, and it was made very clear that
there was not any chance at all, even when it was still operational.

In my experience it was quite easy to visit when it was operational.
The first time I went I rang in the morning and went to Mount Pleasant
in the afternoon. I went to Paddington when it was opened for an
anniversary event, MP was opened on the same occasion. I once went to
an event at the King Edward building, the old GPO HQ, when the guests
had the chance to visit the railway as well. Whilst I was pleased to
visit stations other than Mount Pleasant they all looked the same.

But did you get a ride?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 21/04/2011 10:48, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:59:19 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:35:28 +0100
Paul wrote:
condition but if Royal Mail had an ounce of sense they'd arrange a
series of visits - maybe at just one location - and then charge a decent

If the royal mail had any sense they wouldn't have closed it in the first
place.

I am sure we could debate the rights and wrongs of how the Royal Mail
are managed for a very long time. I don't know enough about the reasons
for closure of Mail Rail to understand whether it was a good or bad
decision.

From what I remember of what was said at the time, changes to mail
handling meant it went to the wrong places, not where the mail needed to
go. Extending to where it was needed was going to cost an awful lot of
money.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:51:15 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:



In my experience it was quite easy to visit when it was operational.
The first time I went I rang in the morning and went to Mount Pleasant
in the afternoon. I went to Paddington when it was opened for an
anniversary event, MP was opened on the same occasion. I once went to
an event at the King Edward building, the old GPO HQ, when the guests
had the chance to visit the railway as well. Whilst I was pleased to
visit stations other than Mount Pleasant they all looked the same.

But did you get a ride?

No. So far as I know 'ordinary folks' only got the chance of a ride on
a few occasions since it was closed.

On 21/04/2011 10:46, Offramp wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:53 am, "Mizter wrote:
wrote:
What state is mailrail in at the moment - has it been mothballed or have
they dismantled it and sold off the stock?

It's been entirely stripped and filled with concrete. The photos on the page
linked to by the OP are all fake.

LOROL!

I just saw this on Yahoo.com

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/London..._wl/1303511465

In message , at 10:32:29 on Sun, 24
Apr 2011, " remarked:
I just saw this on Yahoo.com

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/London...422/photos_net
_web_wl/1303511465

The url of the site whose pictures they are using has been posted
several times.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:32:29 on Sun, 24
Apr 2011, " remarked:
I just saw this on Yahoo.com

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/London...422/photos_net
_web_wl/1303511465

The url of the site whose pictures they are using has been posted
several times.

The point being they're on Yahoo's photo front page.

http://news.yahoo.com/photos

They're coming in at #2 for 'Most viewed photos' and #1 for 'Most emailed
photos' at the moment.

Theo

On Apr 21, 12:01*am, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:57:27 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T

wrote:
A harder glance would lead you to spot the references to Sub-Brit,
whose "countless years of sitting in chairs has resulted in quite the
in depth collection of historical fact and technical nerdery regarding
the place" - at least that's the take of the urbexers. (The urbex
contingent and those of the Sub-Brit persuasion don't quite see eye to
eye, you see - though I doubt the urbex verdict on utl would be all
that glowing either!)

I'm from neither urban exploration camp but one relatively small
building sub-brit covered had blatantly incorrect information
regarding its function, the reason being I was extremely familiar with
the site having worked on engineering a complete revamp of all
equipment there in the mid 1980's

Within an organisation of many thousands, *the number of people who
were aware of this building only ever numbered a dozen or so, most are
now well into retirement, the number 'online' can't be many, and the
number who would ever know about sub-brit is just above zero

I provided them with detailed info about the building, what its true
purpose was, and where the function they claimed was carried out in
this building was really performed, a few years back I could have even
provided them with all the technical drawings and photos of the inside
of the building, especially as it ceased as an operational building in
the late 1990's. * Hell I could have even given them a guided tour!

They plainly couldn't give a stuff as they didn't even acknowledge
receipt and the glaring errors are still there.

--

You say that you contacted Subbrit about a location where they had it
wrong, care to enlighten us as to where and what?