OK, now we're talking about engineering.
I'm curious and want to know what specifically on Number 7 isn't quite as good
as on No4?
What can be learnt from this? Can No7 be modified to alleviate these
differences?

Can someone who knows the TR people please ask them and let me/us know the
answers please?

Thanks,

Sam K.

PS: be nice, people!


>Re: Talyllyn same year on year (not)
>Posted by: "Mike Davies" m54321@...   mike_davies02
>Thu Jul 2, 2009 12:31 pm
>
>
>--- In corris-discuss@ yahoogroups. co.uk, "ijohnston_ian" ><ian.groups@ ....>
wrote:
>
> > Those would be the "allies" making snide remarks here about No 7's
> > shoddiness and unsuitability for real work, would they? What,
> > precisely, do the people at Pendre think is so rotten and "model
> > engineering" about our pride and joy?

>They would be the allies who helped out with tube expanding equipment when
Trefor recently needed this for 7. We're not talking about "snide remarks",
we're talking about real concern (from people who know more about engineering
than I do) that 7 is a mere shadow of 4 due to some inappropriate decisions made
during design or building.

>You could always ask them what they think? Or maybe the views of the people who
maintain 4 are irrelevant?

>The tone of this thread amazes me!
>
>
>