In article , Peter Masson writes
672 on 9 June 1948- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
In article , Peter Masson writes
672 on 9 June 1948
Interesting, Andrew, thanks.
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote
An outline of the Lindall subsidence is at
In message , Greg Procter writes
Never stops anyone over here from pitching in.
Adrian
Ya, I was going from the RCTS Locos of the GWR which is limited in its references to lesser railways :-)
What does Jade think?
(kim)
Do they always flood ? I cannot see why ? When you say existing pits do you mean all the reserves of coal or all the facilities. I can understand some facilities will be lost as they are too dangerous for re-use and some will be uneconomic to recover. Similarly some areas of coal will be ....
Save the coal for when its economic to recover - Thatcher was right on this and many other things.
Cheers, Simon
The pits which were closed by Thatcher on the grounds that they were "uneconomic" can never be reopened for a long list of reasons. Among other things, the communities which mined them no longer exist. The coal in them is lost forever. Conservation of coal for future generations was probably at the very bottom of Thatcher's list of priorities.
(kim)
That's not a reason, if it was felt necessary to reopen the pits then a community could be recreated if wanted. The problem is that Scargill's louts refused to allow essential maintainence to be carried out allowing the pits to become unsafe, wuth galleries collapsed or flooded. The NUM basicaly crapped on its own doorstep.
True.
The communities that mined them were set up once from scratch, but why would they need to be set up again? The days of everyone living within a 5 min walk of the pit are history, the new miners would just drive to work like everyone else...
Paul
Given that maintaining the rule of law was definitely at the top of her list, and that she was facing a wholly politically motivated attempt to bring the British economy to a halt, it is perhaps not surprising that the conservation of coal for future generations was considered secondary.
Given that she deliberately contrived the strike, with the witting or unwitting connivence of Scargill, I'm not convinced the rule of /law/ was uppermost in her mind.
Thanks for that. I think I'd got so fixed on the idea of making it clear that he wan't the NLR/GER/L&SW Adams that I threw out the idea that he was still a William Adams..
Taken over by the LNER on 1 October 1936. Mostly closed in 1959 (the North Norfolk uses part of the route).
Tim
OK, so not that soon after :)
I'd been (incautiously) going by Gerry Fiennes' comment (in "I tried to run a railway") that the Western Region badly needed to learn about closing redundent lines, but that the Eastern (he may even have used "L&NE") had little to learn there - and cited the M&GN as an example. The impression was certainly that it had happened early.
In message , kim writes
What? Does Jade think?
Well that's one way of looking at it but please don't dress it up as fact.
So far as the first bit of the above post I think it is romantic nonsense to talk of communities when talking about pit villages. They were amalgamations of various communities within them just like other industrial and rural villages. And they are still there. And my recollection is that the people who worked in that industry made the best of it but had no wish for their sons to do the same.
>
What does Jade? Think!
Sorry Kim, but thats another reason down the drain ! Anyway the community that mined them here - south derbyshire and NW leics - is still present. Some are at Asfordby but doubt if theres many youngsters or incomers that would be interested in going down t'pit.
Simon
Dont think she pretended otherwise having built up huge stocks ready. Think she was appalled by the cost of the pits and the fact that no one in the coal industry gave a toss. My father always said NCB - No Cu**s Bothered.
Cheers, Simon
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.