--- In corris-discuss@..., "Mike Davies" <m54321@...> wrote:
>
> --- In corris-discuss@..., "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.

I have no doubt that there are many, many people in the TR who are well disposed
towards the Corris, and I think suspect they are being badly misrepresented by
having bitchy remarks anonymously attributed to them.

> 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.

The TR have been playing about with Number 4 for over half a century. It's
hardly surprising that it isn't quite how it came out the works. Number 7 will
evolve too, using different approaches and different techniques for different
services on a different line. For a similar example, look at how many variations
have been introduced to quarry Hunslets to fit them for service on passenger
railways.

Can you name a qualified engineer at Pendre who has stated that 7 is a "mere
shadow" of 7, with reasons?

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

Shall we ask them whether the Giesl ejector was good (as they said when they
fitted it) or bad (as they said when they took it off)?

> The tone of this thread amazes me!

It saddens me. Saying "Everybody at the TR thinks you're rubbish" is not really
a way to make friends and very unfair to our chums over the hills.

Ian