On Jan 11, 6:31*pm, wrote:
Actually I'm glad my info is incorrect. Let's hope the last working is
an all-day runner/early stow so that it can be seen in daylight. Be
nice if the last train can be spruced up - shoebeams repainted,
original all-red roundels restored. Well I can dream!

I'm afraid you probably are dreaming i a number of respects.

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

In article
,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find through
Google regards 2005 as "latest".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find through
Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to use web
forums.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to use web
forums.

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...d=120 0067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article

,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the
forum related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I
can only undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to
use web forums.

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...strict&action=
display&thread=1200067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

Up to a point only. None of the links from Google were _to_ that site,
even though many referred to it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:01 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:04 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article

,
() wrote:

For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the
forum related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I
can only undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find
through Google regards 2005 as "latest".

As Dave said, look at the forum, not the main site.

URL? Since I do much of my Usenet reading offline I don;t tend to
use web forums.

http://districtdave.proboards39.com/...strict&action=
display&thread=1200067784

Easily findable through googling districtdave forum.

Up to a point only. None of the links from Google were _to_ that site,
even though many referred to it.

I found the thread in about ten seconds; I call this "easily
findable".

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=districtdave+forum gives as the first
link http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi - from there a
quick scroll down shows a collection of sub-forums for each line. The
District Line is self-evidently the one where the topic is likely to
be discussed, and there it is as the third topic in the District Line
sub-forum. (It was the second topic last night...)

On Jan 11, 10:59*pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
For accurate information find the appropriate thread on the forum
related to my web site; I'm sure you'll understand that I can only
undertake to be as accurate as I am able in one place.

You're going to have the URL there. The only site I can find through
Google regards 2005 as "latest".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Don't know why you had a problem Googling it - I just have and it was
at the top of the list....

However, the forum address is http://districtdave.proboards39.com/index.cgi

HTH

My info came from the editor of Underground News, You can't trust
anybody these days!!!