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 May 29, 9:42*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
Didn't the original cluster of buildings which formed the station go
further south than the arch so that Drummond Street effectively ran
through the station ?

It was cut into two by the construction of the new station; what is
now Doric Way (presumably named after the Doric portico which was
demolished during the station rebuilding works) was formerly the
eastern end of the same street.

If I remember rightly, on one side of the station there's some kind of
goods vehicle underpass that dives under the new station roughly on
the line of the missing part of Drummond Street.

Martin L

If I can make it out from the diagram I have of the LNWR's proposed
loop under Euston, then Drummond St. continued to exist normally in
front of the arch, and the buildings south of it were just the Euston
hotel.

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.