Talk:Welsh Highland Railway restoration

Merge
As originally suggested on The Welsh Highland Railway Talk Page I suggest that the following sections from the WHR page are merged into this article:

4 Rebuilding the WHR (Caernarfon)
 * 4.1 Phase 1: Caernarfon to Dinas
 * 4.2 Phase 2: Dinas to Waunfawr
 * 4.3 Phase 3: Waunfawr to Rhyd Ddu

5 The future
 * 5.1 WHR (Porthmadog)
 * 5.2 WHR (Caernarfon) - Phase 4: Rhyd Ddu to Porthmadog

Zabdiel 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I had overlooked your original suggestion when creating the new page. The beauty with your suggestion is that when Phase 4 is completed, it can be moved from "The future" to "Rebuilding" section. I would also split the cross town rail link of from Phase four as it is a significant project in its own right. --Stewart 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. A summary may need to be put into the Welsh Highland Railway article - though that will take some work!


 * Just a point - please amend WHR(P) references to WHRL. WHR(P) was a marketing term used for a few years, and it's use ceased at the end of 2008 - replaced by WHHR.  WHRL is the entity that has existed all the way through. --Keith 16:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of date??
This article is rapidly becoming out of date, apart from a the odd external reference being added. Where is there any mention of CTRL being completed, the first trains across Brittania Bridge and so on? --Pandaplodder (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Amended and brought more up to date August 2011 by Pedr Jarvis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.124.11 (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pedr, you really should become a registered user! ;-)  We tend to be suspicious of anonymous editors! -- Hogyn Lleol 15:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not for want of trying!


 * What seems to be the trouble there?
 * "Suspicious" is the correct word.
 * Varlaam (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RhE Income - July 2011
The information as to the RhE income exceeding that on the FR in July 2011 was common knowledge around the Railway in August and was confirmed from reliable sources. No names given for obvious reasons. Pedr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.124.11 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the information is "unpublished heresay", and placed directly by a company employee, it is not verifiable. Reliable sources are not verifiable sources - citation needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.116.171 (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious - Companies law
The article makes claims about company law that appear to have no bearing to reality.

For example, the Companies Acts in force at the time allowed (as they still do) for any single member (shareholder) of a company to call an AGM if there are not sufficient directors within the UK to allow the directors to call an AGM (if there were sufficient directors, then the shareholders can require the directors to call the AGM).

Furthermore, that AGM can simply appoint new directors. It is not uncommon for companies to end up with no directors, and the law provides simple means to deal with this.

The register of members is merely a record, and is not definitive proof of share ownership. If the company were not complying with its obligation to maintain the register (because, say, it had no directors to be able to cause that to happen) then it would not 'invalidate' their ownership. Again, this is not a novel or uncommon situation.

Mauls (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove irrelevant sections
The section on the FR and the structure of the company/trust/society is irrelevant to the restoration of the WHR and does not belong here. The first two sentences do explain the early FR interest, the remaining paragraphs belong to the FR restoration page.

Guztaff (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)