On Wed, 23 May 2012 03:00:10 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Mark Brader:
And the authors of "Rails Through the Clay" were taken in by an
urban legend? I don't think so.

Specifically, what the book says is:

# GOVERNMENT DEEP SHELTERS
#
# The bombings of 1940, and intelligence reports of more powerful
# bombs and more efficient delivery systems, forced a reappraisal
# of the deep-shelter policy. At the end of October the government
# decided to construct a system of deep shelters linked to existing
# tube stations. London Transport was consulted about the sites,
# and was required to build the tunnels at the public expense[1],
# with the understanding that it was to have the option of taking
# them over for railway use after the war. With the latter point
# in mind, sites were examined on the routes of possible north-south
# and east-west express tube railways, as discussed in the previous
# chapter[2], but now comprising Bank--Holborn, Camden Town --
# Tottenham Court Road and Kennington--Balham.
#
# It was decided that each shelter would consist of two parallel
# tubes of 16ft 6in internal diameter and 1,400ft in length, with
# about two-thirds of its length lined with precast concrete and
# one-third with cast iron.

The book goes on to talk in some detail about the tunnels and
their use or non-use as shelters at different stages of the war and
afterwards, then the possible use for trains comes up one more time.
On the night of 21 May 1955 the deep shelter at Goodge Street,
now in use as an Army Transit Centre, was damaged by fire, and:

# The fire coincided with parliamentary consideration of a government
# Bill seeking to take over the shelters, (the Underground Works
# (London) Bill), and the Minister of Works assured the Commons
# they would not again be used for human occupation in peacetime
# (although no one was killed, the fire had caused some alarm and
# was difficult to extinguish). During the progress of the Bill, it
# was revealed that the option for railway use had been retained only
# on the three Clapham shelters and the adjacent one at Stockwell.

Okay?

This section of the book has footnotes referring to three Public
Record Office files, but the footnote marks are placed on sentences
that relate to specific shelter locations and the sentences referring
to future rail use aren't footnoted. However, for what it's worth,
the files a MT 6/2728, RAIL 1124/252, and HO 205/266.

Googling on "MT 6/2728", I find that www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
knows it under the title of "Air Raid Precautions: Deep level shelters:
London Underground Railways. File No: ZR.5/6/47". It can be viewed
at the records office in Kew, and print and digital copies can be
ordered but they won't quote a cost unless you contact them to ask
for it.

Searching on the same web site, I find that RAIL 1124/252 is a
"Highway development survey (Greater London): report by Sir Charles
Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens", while and HO 205/266 is "Shelters in
underground railways in London: contracts and costs." So it's
MT 6/2728 that's most likely to be the interesting one.


[1] The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

[2] Over the period 1936-39, a considerable number of plans were
examined for express tube lines generally paralleling existing routes.

Last week, I (Mark Brader) wrote:
The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

And Charles Ellson responded:
There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

It was a statutory corporation, but it issued dividend-paying stock,
and the owners of the previous private transport companies received
shares of LPTB stock in place of their shares in their former
companies. There were several classes of preference shares and then
there were the ordinary or "C" shares, which were intended to pay 5%
for the first 2 years and then 5.5½%. If this was not met over a
three-year period, the stockholders had the right to put the
corporation into receivership#. To me that adds up to ownership
even if they didn't have the right to control the LPTB's actions.

#-It wasn't, but they didn't. The full dividends on the preference
shares were paid, but after that there was only enough to pay
dividends of 3.5½%, 4%, 4%, 4¼%, 4%, and 1½% on C shares in the
6 years 1933-34 through 1938-39. The stockholders held a meeting
but there was no consensus that a receiver was warranted. And then
the war came and the government took control.

See "A History of London Transport", vol. 2, chapters 15-16, and
"Rails Through the Clay", 1993 edition, chapter 11.
--
Mark Brader | "...it's always easier to see the mud when it's
Toronto | coming toward your side rather than from your side."
| --Mike Kruger

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On May 29, 7:59*am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Last week, I (Mark Brader) wrote:

The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

And Charles Ellson responded:

There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

It was a statutory corporation, but it issued dividend-paying stock,
and the owners of the previous private transport companies received
shares of LPTB stock in place of their shares in their former
companies. *There were several classes of preference shares and then
there were the ordinary or "C" shares, which were intended to pay 5%
for the first 2 years and then 5.5 %. *If this was not met over a
three-year period, the stockholders had the right to put the
corporation into receivership#. *To me that adds up to ownership
even if they didn't have the right to control the LPTB's actions.

#-It wasn't, but they didn't. *The full dividends on the preference
shares were paid, but after that there was only enough to pay
dividends of 3.5 %, 4%, 4%, 4 %, 4%, and 1 % on C shares in the
6 years 1933-34 through 1938-39. *The stockholders held a meeting
but there was no consensus that a receiver was warranted. *And then
the war came and the government took control.

See "A History of London Transport", vol. 2, chapters 15-16, and
"Rails Through the Clay", 1993 edition, chapter 11.

Thank you, that was VERY informative. It filled a gap in my
understanding of the LTPB.

On Tue, 29 May 2012 00:57:22 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On May 29, 7:59*am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Last week, I (Mark Brader) wrote:

The distinction is meaningful because from 1933 until 1947,
although London Transport had been forcibly unified and brought
under public control, its ownership was still private.

And Charles Ellson responded:

There was no ownership, it was a statutary corporation.

It was a statutory corporation, but it issued dividend-paying stock,
and the owners of the previous private transport companies received
shares of LPTB stock in place of their shares in their former
companies.

If it was stock not shares then there was no share ownership.

*There were several classes of preference shares and then
there were the ordinary or "C" shares, which were intended to pay 5%
for the first 2 years and then 5.5 %. *If this was not met over a
three-year period, the stockholders had the right to put the
corporation into receivership#. *To me that adds up to ownership
even if they didn't have the right to control the LPTB's actions.

#-It wasn't, but they didn't. *The full dividends on the preference
shares were paid, but after that there was only enough to pay
dividends of 3.5 %, 4%, 4%, 4 %, 4%, and 1 % on C shares in the
6 years 1933-34 through 1938-39. *The stockholders held a meeting
but there was no consensus that a receiver was warranted. *And then
the war came and the government took control.

See "A History of London Transport", vol. 2, chapters 15-16, and
"Rails Through the Clay", 1993 edition, chapter 11.

Thank you, that was VERY informative. It filled a gap in my
understanding of the LTPB.

Charles Ellson:
If it was stock not shares then there was no share ownership.

Your dialect differs from mine, then. As to the LPTB, I have
no more to add.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "*I* never have problems distinguishing
| Peter Seebach and Steve Summit!" -- Steve Summit

On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:13:34 -0500, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Charles Ellson:
If it was stock not shares then there was no share ownership.

Your dialect differs from mine, then. As to the LPTB, I have
no more to add.

The interpretation of "stock" seems to be a bit woolly and
internationally variable; I was taking it as investments issued which
were backed by LPTB's assets but which involved no rights of
ownership. It seems unusual that the LPTB would have involved any
share capital and that what the predecessors were actually issued with
were investments backed by the LPTB's assets as implied in :-
http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk...llion-pounds-a
including :-
"The amount to be paid on the C stock is now 51 per cent. per year. If
this rate of interest is not paid to the C stock holders in each of
any three consecutive years after June 30, 1935, the holders may
appoint a receiver."
Phew! (or has someone missed a decimal point ?)

Charles Ellson:
"The amount to be paid on the C stock is now 51 per cent. per year. If
this rate of interest is not paid to the C stock holders in each of
any three consecutive years after June 30, 1935, the holders may
appoint a receiver."
Phew! (or has someone missed a decimal point ?)

Well, you can see from other parts of the text -- especially the
third-last paragraph -- how bad the OCR is. I wish they'd given us
a full-resolution scan of the original page instead of a thumbnail.

Here I think the 1 is supposed to be a ½, giving 5½. Similarly for
the + sign in the next paragraph: 5+ is again 5½. The fact that
£5,100,000 and 51 start with the same two significant digits would
just be a coincidence.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It is never good to adapt the design to the software;
| it should be the other way around. --J.A. Durieux

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Charles Ellson wrote:
The interpretation of "stock" seems to be a bit woolly and
internationally variable; I was taking it as investments issued which
were backed by LPTB's assets but which involved no rights of
ownership.


That would seem to indicate that they were bonds.