Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Pretty straightforward to most folk. He's just been lulled into complacency by 500 coal engines, 300 coal tanks, 310 cauliflowers, and 943 DXs - such tedious uniformity! Though to liven things up, 500 of those DXs became SDXs. They don't deal in small change, these Crewe types.

 

It has to be said that Webb's very best engines were a class of only ten.

Crewe's "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" approach. Whereas the Midland Railway couldn't stop fiddling in an attempt to get it right.

 

Well, that was generally the case for the LNWR, although Webb's experiments with compounding were a little different. The Teutonics were rather the exception, but it was a bit too late by the time they were built.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Jol Wilkinson said:

Whereas the Midland Railway couldn't stop fiddling in an attempt to get it right.

 

That's not quite how I would choose to put it. More like "continuous improvement". Right all along but got even righter. 

 

In terms of numbers, including the ten S&DJR and sixteen M&GNJR examples, 601 of the 891 small-boilered 0-6-0s built under S.W. Johnson's superintendency were of the same dimensions.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It looks a lovely model.

 

One thing which continues to intrigue me is the position of the outside cylinders on GW four-cylinder locos; really far back, their rears adjacent to the leading drivers (the same as on the 'Princess Royals'). Exactly the same positioning as on the Thompson LNER Pacifics.

 

As far as I'm aware, nobody is critical of the aesthetics of this arrangement on the Swindon products, but the Thompson big locos are frequently criticised because of this, with frequent comments such as ungainly, unbalanced and awkward. Could it be it's because the bogie on the latter type is pushed much further forward, it having 'only' three big cylinders? Meaning that they're too wide a diameter for the rear bogie wheels to sit inside them. It's not the positioning of the outside cylinders which is 'wrong', just the positioning of the bogie. Also, the resulting short connecting rods have been a cause of criticism, but they certainly didn't seem to hamper the 'Castles' and 'Kings'. 

 

Speaking of Edward Thompson, I'm just reviewing the latest book on his life and work by Tim Hillier-Graves, published by Pen and Sword. It's very comprehensive and very interesting, and sheds a more-kindly light on the man than many other works.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Indeed there may be more to Edward Thompson than I have read to date, and the book by Tim Hillier-Graves sounds interesting. I never knew he served with distinction in WW1, for instance. Other books about his talents are pretty muted in praise, if there is any praise at all.

 

I too do not quite understand why Thompson Pacifics are described as unbalanced and ungainly when Castles and Princesses are not.  If post-war there had been a need for standardised mixed-traffic engines capable of anything, then they may have been a good basis. The large grates may not have suited....  

 

Thanks for mentioning the book, and if your Nikon Df ever wears out (impossible!) you can borrow my spare camera, Tony....   I noticed when browsing s/h quality cameras that shutter counts over 100,000 weren't unusual.

 

As to A2/2s being ungainly, it's subjective indeed.

 

60505_A2_portrait59_2a_r2080.jpg.a0f8cebaf5cb9cf05b35b8871ad580c0.jpg

 

TMC value weathering,  edited but nothing changed on model. 

 

edit;  p.s. I have just bought the book by Tim Hillier-Graves, so shall be obliged to be completely objective. 

 

Edited by robmcg
typos, addition.
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

As far as I'm aware, nobody is critical of the aesthetics of this arrangement on the Swindon products, but the Thompson big locos are frequently criticised because of this, with frequent comments such as ungainly, unbalanced and awkward. Could it be it's because the bogie on the latter type is pushed much further forward, it having 'only' three big cylinders? Meaning that they're too wide a diameter for the rear bogie wheels to sit inside them. It's not the positioning of the outside cylinders which is 'wrong', just the positioning of the bogie. 

 

 

For me, the ‘ungainly’ look of Thompson’s Pacific’s over the Swindon products comes down to the visual impact of the exposed frames in front of the cylinders.  The frames of Thompson’s machines appear to be much more apparent, and create an impression of ‘something missing’ aesthetically.

 

Perhaps something to do with there being enough space there for a fourth pair of drivers... whereas this is not the case with the Swindon products.  ;)

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:


I’m far from knowledgeable on this but that’s  as I understand it. 
 

Fortunately my model has the 10 spoke bogie wheels but that would have been easily sorted if not. I happily accept it’s other shortcomings as there are many other, more pressing, model matters to consider. On the move, from 2 feet away it looks the part! :) 
 

 

Hornby supplied the correct bogie wheels FOC on request. I've got a set but haven't quite got round to fitting them yet...

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Indeed there may be more to Edward Thompson than I have read to date, and the book by Tim Hillier-Graves sounds interesting. I never knew he served with distinction in WW1, for instance. Other books about his talents are pretty muted in praise, if there is any praise at all.

 

I too do not quite understand why Thompson Pacifics are described as unbalanced and ungainly when Castles and Princesses are not.  If post-war there had been a need for standardised mixed-traffic engines capable of anything, then they may have been a good basis. The large grates may not have suited....  

 

Thanks for mentioning the book, and if your Nikon Df ever wears out (impossible!) you can borrow my spare camera, Tony....   I noticed when browsing s/h quality cameras that shutter counts over 100,000 weren't unusual.

 

As to A2/2s being ungainly, it's subjective indeed.

 

60505_A2_portrait59_2a_r2080.jpg.a0f8cebaf5cb9cf05b35b8871ad580c0.jpg

 

TMC value weathering,  edited but nothing changed on model. 

 

edit;  p.s. I have just bought the book by Tim Hillier-Graves, so shall be obliged to be completely objective. 

 

Good morning Rob,

 

Apart from a book on ET by Peter Grafton, I've never read a book where Thompson's work is mentioned which isn't hyper-critical, particularly where his Pacifics are concerned.

 

I've just about finished reading the latest book, and it's probably a fairer reflection of the man and his work than many which have appeared. That said, I can find no mention of the near-rebellion in Scotland when the P2s were rebuilt (these were professional railwaymen). And, there's always that sneaking suspicion about his Pacifics with regard to how they were employed by BR. On their building, particularly the A2/3s, they took over many of the top jobs on the ECML because, immediately post-War, the older Pacifics were virtually worn out. Yet, immediately on the introduction of the Peppercorn Pacifics, they were moved away from the likes of Top Shed, never to return. Apart from the four at Haymarket (three A2/1s and one A2/3), they were rarely employed on the prestigious workings. Granted, they were more mixed traffic, with their 6' 2" drivers, but they were always 'second-string'. 

 

As it happened (and I've just been reading a piece by Gerry Fiennes, written about his time when he was traffic manager of the ECML in the late-'50s/-early'60s), where he relates how the final fling of steam power on the route represented its 'finest hour'. The irony being it was achieved, in the main, with Gresley Pacifics, all rejuvenated with double chimneys, the V2s (particularly at peak times) and the A1s. Apart from the last-mentioned (and Peter Townend considers 60156 the finest loco ever on his books), all classes designed before Thompson took office. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's not quite how I would choose to put it. More like "continuous improvement". Right all along but got even righter. 

 

In terms of numbers, including the ten S&DJR and sixteen M&GNJR examples, 601 of the 891 small-boilered 0-6-0s built under S.W. Johnson's superintendency were of the same dimensions.

'Continuous improvement'? Up to a point on the Midland..............

 

I bow to your superior knowledge on the products of Derby, but I think it's widely accepted that the 'dead hand' of Anderson strangled the development of locomotive policy on the LMS until (fortunately) Stanier arrived and sorted things out.

 

I can't recall where I read it now, but there was some correspondence from the North British at the time the 'Royal Scots' were being built with regard to the wrap-around smokeboxes, especially as 'proper' drum smokeboxes were being built for the A1s at the same time. Fortunately, the 'Scots' did get decent valves and bearings. 

 

Similar correspondence occurred regarding the building of the Garratts in Manchester, where Beyer-Peacock were surprised to be asked to use (effectively) 2F/3F bearings. To quote Essery and Jenkinson' 'Had Beyer-Peacock been allowed to design the locomotive without the need to pay homage at the 'Midland' altar, then a very different result might have been achieved'. That, from two dyed-in-the-wool Midland men! 

 

There's no doubt the Midland was a great railway, and its 'small engine' policy suited its requirements perfectly. But not for the LMS.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I bow to your superior knowledge on the products of Derby, but I think it's widely accepted that the 'dead hand' of Anderson strangled the development of locomotive policy on the LMS until (fortunately) Stanier arrived and sorted things out.

 

There is a great deal of mythology and folklore about locomotive design on the LMS, much of it fostered by men on the inside who had axes to grind. I would take any of the popular accounts with a hefty pinch of salt. I'd no more believe any of it unless supported by scholarly research into primary sources than I believe the lurid tales I'm reading on hear of the Doncaster LDO.

 

  

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Continuous improvement'? Up to a point on the Midland..............

 

Anyway, I was referring specifically to the 0-6-0 goods engines built in the period 1875-1902, which, while remaining of the same basic size, were gradually increased in power through the fitting of larger cylinders and boilers of higher working pressure; the same could be said in regard to the passenger locomotives, which were of many numerically small classes, each with some advance on the previous: most notably the introduction of piston valves in the 1890s. The other point I find I have to make repeatedly so will make it now is that at this period Midland engines were big. They ceased to be big relative to those of other railways when the introduction of train control rendered bigger engines unnecessary.

 

I'm with the Fat Controller: "I never liked these big engines. Always going wrong." (And that was an A1-ish locomotive he was referring to!)

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There is a great deal of mythology and folklore about locomotive design on the LMS, much of it fostered by men on the inside who had axes to grind. I would take any of the popular accounts with a hefty pinch of salt. I'd no more believe any of it unless supported by scholarly research into primary sources than I believe the lurid tales I'm reading on hear of the Doncaster LDO.

So, I'm not to consider the works of Essery and Jenkinson as 'scholarly' research'?

 

Despite his great (and deserved) love for the Midland, Bob Essery (a very dear, old friend) had no illusions as to how Midland policy hampered locomotive development on the LMS. 

 

The correspondence I mentioned regarding the NB on the 'Scots' and BP on the Garratts was from 'primary sources'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 06/04/2021 at 08:15, Tony Wright said:

Good morning John,

 

As you say, the DMR 'Z' kit is excellent. I built one some little time ago for review, shortly after it was released. Images of it must be on my old computer, so I'll have to search later.

 

I can't remember who brought along this example.................

 

131660700_DMRZ.jpg.ad5e1467376578fd500b4bd66c9374ac.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

'Twas I Tony.

Built and painted for me by Chris Phillips.

Tony

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

So, I'm not to consider the works of Essery and Jenkinson as 'scholarly' research'?

 

With the greatest respect to those two authors, who did so much to make information on the Midland and LMS widely available to enthusiasts and modellers and to popularise them as subjects for modelling, I have to say that the four volumes of Stephen Summerson's Midland Railway Locomotives, the two volumes of Ralph Lacy's Midland Railway Carriages, and the LMS Locomotive Profiles series are more scholarly, making use of a wider range of primary sources such as the MR Locomotive and Carriage & Wagon committee minute books at Kew. There is also now more primary material available in the collection of the Midland Railway Study Centre. Essery & Jenkinson's Illustrated Review format set a standard for rolling stock histories that has been much imitated but it can be superficial - in the very literal sense that as modellers they were much concerned with external appearance. Don't get me wrong though - I wouldn't be without their volumes on Midland Locomotives or Midland Carriages and of course Essery's pioneering Midland Wagons. (The summary tables in the Locomotive volumes are especially useful for quick reference - I go there first, then turn to Summerson for the detail.) They are essential introductions to the subject. There's a well-known saying about standing on the shoulders of giants.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

What about the wagons?

 

Since most are the work of others, I haven't a clue as to their origins. Though I know you built one for me! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Maybe two if you’re a good boy this year! 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a three legged stool in the provision of locomotives - operating, (civil) engineering and design.  Tony, Stephen and I approach from three different perspectives.  The LNER was horses for courses, so Gresley designed a small number of "high profile" locomotives for the London - Edinburgh spine, large numbers of 2-8-0s, 2-6-0s and even 0-6-0s for the daily slog and was prepared to adopt another designer's work (ie Scottish Directors) to meet a specific demand.

Maunsell had to meld the big engine policy of the LSWR and the small engine policy of the SECR, which he achieved in the main.  With reference to the LSWR, look at a photo of Urie's pacific tank (H16 class) and note the significant spacing between the second and third coupled wheels - the Engineer insisted on a maximum of 20 ton per axle.  On the SECR, the identification of a relatively small number of pinch points, and their resolution by the Engineer,  soon permitted the use of Arthurs and Nelsons on the main lines.  The Nelsons, of course, were designed as a requirement of the operational division to haul boat trains, the Arthurs were capable of hauling most other trains.  And whilst the Schools were really a cut down Arthur, there was some Nelson philosophy in there.

The Midland Railway was at the forefront of locomotive design and size until the Engineer limited axle load and the Operating Superintendent introduced train control.  The MR philosophy was of help in Scotland, where locomotive design had at best atrophied after 1910, but forcing a small engine policy on the LNWR and L&Y .....  Then the in-fighting between Euston and especially between the three design teams at Crewe, Derby and Horwich.

There was  often friction between Maunsell's strategy team at Waterloo and Finlayson's draughtsmen at Eastleigh, but it was mostly constructive.

Bill

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ian Rathbone said:

Here’s a more workaday Z -

 

0F3B0284-2FF0-4688-BB73-3A5D3D9532AD.jpeg.65a2f1319cfc303bbae5292708bcdc42.jpeg
 

On the topic of Thompson and the Great Northern rebuild, this is one I painted some years ago, I think Mike Edge built it. This is how it was originally turned out in dark blue , more GE than GN.

 

C9DAD8EF-EFC7-4978-9EEC-4BA90DEBB0C9.jpeg.0517097a88d8c16c0dc689d6c04dbbe9.jpeg

 

I heard tales that there were plans to rebuild it to an A3 on Thompson’s departure but that was probably apocryphal. 
 

Re ‘Glastonbury Abbey’, on looking through my old spotting books a couple of years ago I found that I had actually cabbed the loco on a school trip to Stafford Road shed. Coming from murkier parts I had never seen so much green, copper and brass in one place. I cabbed Lode Star more recently while it was at Tyseley.

 

Ian R

 

Beautiful work, as always.

 

I assume 4470 is in 4mm Scale? If so, and Mike will tell us, was it built from a Crownline kit or scratch? 

 

Do you remember painting this version for me?

 

60113.jpg.6061dfc480ddac19f6f98c74a8d04845.jpg

 

Originally running on Stoke Summit.

 

1093604391_60113GREATNORTHERN.jpg.9f3105ffed6704a7ddf10a923ab51294.jpg

 

And now on Little Bytham.

 

I built it from a Crownline kit, and wrote up my experiences in MORILL; a few years ago now.

 

Didn't you paint the GNR coat of arms with a single-hair brush, or near enough? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Below is my now near completed Caledonian Railway 45ft Full Brake, I’m not sure how prototypically correct it is. I know it’s not exact, but drawings (if they exist) and photographs are hard to find. I don’t have a copy of Mike Williams’ Caledonian Railway Carriages (but even then I don’t know how much or if these 45ft vehicles are covered in the book) nor can I justify purchasing the book (postage to Australia is generally more than the book price) for one carriage.

 

266322979_CaledonianRailway45ftFullBrake(04).jpg.3d7cbc4fed9e6b39c2922d4423cef106.jpg

 

Photographs on eBay show CR passenger carrying carriages with two queen posts and rod trussing; I have no reason to believe the full brake would be different. This is just .8mm rod and .45mm wire soldered on. I’ve assumed it wouldn’t have a dynamo or battery box(es) so have just done V hangers and brake cylinders on the underside.  As this one will be painted as a departmental stock vehicle I removed most of the bogie footboards. Vents on the roof are similar to LSWR ones, they're three old ones I found in my 'bits box'. The etches are Worsley Works and went together very easily.

 

It’ll be a while until its painted as I want to modify a Ratio models MR bogie brake third clerestory into a MR 6 wheel carriage utilising a Bill Bedford 6 wheel W irons etch and a drawing from the Midland Railway Centre. They'll be painted at the same time. I also need to have a practice at making some home printed transfers for them.

 

2116673044_MRClerestory31ft(01).jpg.f322fadcbfb35e683195a19d4cca8fe7.jpg

 

Both carriages will form part of a breakdown train I’m partway through completing; the crane is a D&S 15T kit I bought direct from Mr Pinnock many years ago and the jib runner will be scratch built.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited by Iain.d
add a word, and then change another one...
  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

4470 was a Crownline kit but I may have modified it a bit, nothing else in my notes though.

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

There seems to be a three legged stool in the provision of locomotives - operating, (civil) engineering and design.  Tony, Stephen and I approach from three different perspectives.  The LNER was horses for courses, so Gresley designed a small number of "high profile" locomotives for the London - Edinburgh spine, large numbers of 2-8-0s, 2-6-0s and even 0-6-0s for the daily slog and was prepared to adopt another designer's work (ie Scottish Directors) to meet a specific demand.

Maunsell had to meld the big engine policy of the LSWR and the small engine policy of the SECR, which he achieved in the main.  With reference to the LSWR, look at a photo of Urie's pacific tank (H16 class) and note the significant spacing between the second and third coupled wheels - the Engineer insisted on a maximum of 20 ton per axle.  On the SECR, the identification of a relatively small number of pinch points, and their resolution by the Engineer,  soon permitted the use of Arthurs and Nelsons on the main lines.  The Nelsons, of course, were designed as a requirement of the operational division to haul boat trains, the Arthurs were capable of hauling most other trains.  And whilst the Schools were really a cut down Arthur, there was some Nelson philosophy in there.

The Midland Railway was at the forefront of locomotive design and size until the Engineer limited axle load and the Operating Superintendent introduced train control.  The MR philosophy was of help in Scotland, where locomotive design had at best atrophied after 1910, but forcing a small engine policy on the LNWR and L&Y .....  Then the in-fighting between Euston and especially between the three design teams at Crewe, Derby and Horwich.

There was  often friction between Maunsell's strategy team at Waterloo and Finlayson's draughtsmen at Eastleigh, but it was mostly constructive.

Bill

 

The axle spacing of the H16 is to keep the axles either side of the ashpan - nothing to do with weight distribution. The leading axle position is determined by fitting it in between the drivers and the bogie/cylinder position.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Iain.d said:

Below is my now near completed Caledonian Railway 45ft Full Brake, I’m not sure how prototypically correct it is. I know it’s not exact, but drawings (if they exist) and photographs are hard to find. I don’t have a copy of Mike Williams’ Caledonian Railway Carriages (but even then I don’t know how much or if these 45ft vehicles are covered in the book) nor can I justify purchasing the book (postage to Australia is generally more than the book price) for one carriage.

 

266322979_CaledonianRailway45ftFullBrake(04).jpg.3d7cbc4fed9e6b39c2922d4423cef106.jpg

 

Photographs on eBay show CR passenger carrying carriages with two queen posts and rod trussing; I have no reason to believe the full brake would be different. This is just .8mm rod and .45mm wire soldered on. I’ve assumed it wouldn’t have a dynamo or battery box(es) so have just done V hangers and brake cylinders on the underside.  As this one will be painted as a departmental stock vehicle I removed most of the bogie footboards. Vents on the roof are similar to LSWR ones, they're three old ones I found in my 'bits box'. The etches are Worsley Works and went together very easily.

 

It’ll be a while until its painted as I want to modify a Ratio models MR bogie brake third clerestory into a MR 6 wheel carriage utilising a Bill Bedford 6 wheel W irons etch and a drawing from the Midland Railway Centre. They'll be painted at the same time. I also need to have a practice at making some home printed transfers for them.

 

2116673044_MRClerestory31ft(01).jpg.f322fadcbfb35e683195a19d4cca8fe7.jpg

 

Both carriages will form part of a breakdown train I’m partway through completing; the crane is a D&S 15T kit I bought direct from Mr Pinnock many years ago and the jib runner will be scratch built.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Very neat work, Iain,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

...

 

And, there's always that sneaking suspicion about his Pacifics with regard to how they were employed by BR. On their building, particularly the A2/3s, they took over many of the top jobs on the ECML because, immediately post-War, the older Pacifics were virtually worn out. Yet, immediately on the introduction of the Peppercorn Pacifics, they were moved away from the likes of Top Shed, never to return. Apart from the four at Haymarket (three A2/1s and one A2/3), they were rarely employed on the prestigious workings. Granted, they were more mixed traffic, with their 6' 2" drivers, but they were always 'second-string'. 

 

 

As my old Dad used to say, though:

 

"You may well be the bravest soldier in the whole Army ...

 

... but if they only ever put you in the Cookhouse, you're probably never going to win the VC."

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I say this as someone who worked as one for nine years, but one consistently bad idea is, "Let's employ a management consultant". 

 

While on a secondment from my permanent employers some years ago, I worked  closely with a very senior management consultant for a couple of years.

 

His view was that, typically, management consultants get about 70% of their ideas and solutions by talking to a Company's own staff.  They already know most of the problems, and they already have a pretty good idea of how they ought to be fixed - the problem is, the Company's own management won't ask, won't listen; and if they do, won't believe what they're told by their own people.  Whereas a management consultant - especially if they come from a 'big name' accountancy firm charging a very fat fee indeed - is seen as independent and authoritative.

 

(At least half the remaining 30% of ideas come, he said, from having previously worked with other Companies whose solutions could be ported-across; and in most cases those solutions had themselves been reached by the above process).

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

While on a secondment from my permanent employers some years ago, I worked  closely with a very senior management consultant for a couple of years.

 

His view was that, typically, management consultants get about 70% of their ideas and solutions by talking to a Company's own staff.  They already know most of the problems, and they already have a pretty good idea of how they ought to be fixed - the problem is, the Company's own management won't ask, won't listen; and if they do, won't believe what they're told by their own people.  Whereas a management consultant - especially if they come from a 'big name' accountancy firm charging a very fat fee indeed - is seen as independent and authoritative.

 

(At least half the remaining 30% of ideas come, he said, from having previously worked with other Companies whose solutions could be ported-across; and in most cases those solutions had themselves been reached by the above process).

 

 

Hi There,

 

My experience of being "listened to by management" was that they miraculously, and eventually, came up with the same bright ideas that I had explained to them three months earlier.

 

Once I started confirming my ideas via email the three month period strangely turned into a nine to twelve month period. As if within the extra six to nine month period I had somehow forgotten all about what my idea was in the first place, idiots !!!

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few questions (not all railway related)  that have persisted despite attempts to find answers using the normal channels.  One is why the preference for inside cylinder 0-6-0s?  From a maintanance perspective an outside cylinder should be much easier to service.  I did come across a suggestion that the early wheel bearing quality was such that an outside cylinder would have caused excess wear (due presumably side or twist trust motion) on the bearings and that an inside cylinder arrangement would put a more even load on the bearings. Just curious. 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

His view was that, typically, management consultants get about 70% of their ideas and solutions by talking to a Company's own staff.  They already know most of the problems, and they already have a pretty good idea of how they ought to be fixed

 

 

It used to be said that a consultant was a man who borrowed your watch to tell you the time.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...