SVR-Online Forum Forum Index SVR-Online Forum
The forum is run on a voluntary basis for members, volunteers and SVR enthusiasts.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

THE 82045 LOCOMOTIVE TRUST
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> Motive Power - Steam
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
michaelh



Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 919
Location: Droitwich Spa

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LMS2968 wrote:
TonyW wrote:
With these last two posts you have demonstrated more than admirably the credibility with which your group/fund is obviously blessed.



I teach engineering to young people, many of whom have difficulty, for one reason or another, with grammar and / or spelling. It does not prevent them becoming good and sometimes excellent engineers. Engineering is maths rather than language based.

This comment though reveals more about you than I really care to know.


But it's about more than engineering skills though, since it apparently involves raising £1.25m of other people's cash, and spending it wisely
_________________
Michael Howard
Heritage Railways supporter since 1968
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21979240@N07/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyW



Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Engineering is only a very small part of your whole project. It is the engineers who spend your hard earned money, but who can do nothing without that hard cash other than twiddle their thumbs and puff on their pipe dreams.

The fund raising aspect of your project relies on good presentation, public relations and communication skills - not engineering. I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly it may seem, that lms8f48773 was an official spokesperson for your group as it was that same ID that Chris Proudfoot first lambasted me for daring to have an opinion and then chose to sensibly make a reasoned response to my argument.

Add to that good accounting, budget control and fiscal management and you may appreciate that the engineers have to take a back seat for a lot of the time.

Public perception and presentation of your aims and goals is paramount to the success of your project. This is a public forum and anybody can read what is being written here. So far, your public image does not look very good.

And your opinion of me? Well, it doesn't really bother me. I stand by my comments. And I'm not looking for £1.25m.

My advice: Get your act together - fast!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyW



Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just going to add a bit more....

I would like to make it clear that my comments concerning your groups credibility were not aimed at all at the langauge skills of the person known as lms8f48773.

My comments concerning credibility was based on the loco consisting of - apparently - two frames plates and one wheel, and yet plans are already being made for it to visit other railways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lms8f48773
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:04 pm    Post subject: THE 82045 LOCOMOTIVE FUND Reply with quote

i just like to punt out to TonyW ive got dyslexia condition causing difficulty
in reading and spelling. im a bit disapunted with you becouse you say you are with the group and not . my id is lms8f48773 im 34 old. im a svr member since 1980s i think there may be more People with dyslexia
on the svr online forum think what you say. we are not making plans
yet for visit other railways.


paul
Back to top
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2729
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boldford wrote:
At least a BR Std Class 3 tank is usable on virtually every heritage line.


TonyW wrote:
plans are already being made for it to visit other railways.


To state something is usable elsewhere is not, repeat not, making plans to visit other railways. It is nothing more than a statement of fact in making a comparison with other, less useful IMHO, proposed locomotive projects.
_________________
There are two kinds of people.

1: Those who back up their hard drives.
2: Those who have never had a hard drive crash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyW



Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the clarification Paul. I had guessed that you had such a condition and was only commenting on what you had written, not how it had been written.

However, the second of your pair of messages does state "and 82045 will be visiting other steam railways". I take it that this comment has now been withdrawn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LMS2968



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 372
Location: Wigan

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TonyW wrote:
Thank you for the clarification Paul. I had guessed that you had such a condition and was only commenting on what you had written, not how it had been written.

However, the second of your pair of messages does state "and 82045 will be visiting other steam railways". I take it that this comment has now been withdrawn.



My reply and comment were based on the assumption of a personal attack, as seemed probable. In view of the above I therefore apologise and withdraw the comment.

Perhaps I should state, to avoid confusion, that I am not involved in the management of this project, although I know both Tony and Chris very well. Possibly the statement 'Could be made available...' would be more acceptable, but while plans at this stage to visit other railways would be, to say the least, premature, the statement is hardly controversial or a basis to condemn a project.

The 82045 Fund does have some problems, as we all do. I understand from conversations with Chris that these will be tackled as soon as time and opportunity permit, but time has been rather taken up recently by the purchase and cutting of the frames, the negotiations for their location at and movement to the SVR. As to the loco 'consisting of - apparently - two frames plates and one wheel(set)', well - that's a hell of a lot more than it had a year ago!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
creese_m



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 567
Location: West Midlands

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

terry-moore wrote:
I agree 100% with Tony. The funding of a new loco is the economics of the madhouse. With the inevitable costs over-run it is probably going to cost nearer £2m to complete.

That would fund overhauls for Hinton Manor, Hagley Hall, 80079, 1501,43106, 75078 and 48773. I think a reality check is called for.


I know it's been said but i'll say it again . That money if not subscribed to the 82045 project will go to something else that interests the donor and that may well not be any of the above

I personally struggle a little with the A1 and yet it has achieved stunning progress to the point where we can seriously look forward to seeing it run

The project to build 82045 think is exceedingly worthwhile , It would be a tremendous feather in the cap of the SVR and if the enthusiast movement is excited by it and funds then why not

On another point LMS48773 , Whilst sympathising with dyslexia some of the postings on here and National Preservation reflect poorly You are going to need every penny you can raise and poor promotional material is not going to help.

I am also very saddened by Tony W's posts, somewhat unneccessary. I suppose you similarly mocked 71000 and 6023 ?

regards

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyW



Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

creese_m wrote:
I am also very saddened by Tony W's posts, somewhat unneccessary. I suppose you similarly mocked 71000 and 6023 ?

No, I didn't.

Both of these projects have incurred huge expenditure to replace the missing wheels (6023) or missing cylinders (71000). However, they both started with a goodly chunk of their respective machines in existence already, not nothing at all. Frankly, I would have been surprised if either project had failed!

6023 in particular goes to show just how good the GWS are at extracting money from "the faithful" but, and to their credit, they always deliver what they say they are going to do. The lack of support from HLF for the railmotor must have been a crushing blow, but still that project also continues apace with the financial goodwill coming from other sources.

The strange thing about the 82045 project is that it is not actually clear how to make a contribution. Information about the project is very hard to come by, and before anybody says it a subscription-only Yahoo forum is NOT a suitable outlet in my view. How would somebody make a contribution? Would it be a donation, a membership fee, or a share purchase? Can Gift Aid be used?

Again, this is all part of the public perception of the group.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KHARDS



Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 260
Location: BEDFORDSHIRE

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will personally continue to support currently existing locomotives but respect the obvious right for people to create and support what they like. I think we cxan all agree that the tank would be a useful engine on the SVR and should be an attraction to.

Could any moidifications be made to the original design? Will any internal/unseen modifications be made so that aesthetically the engine is the same but it is a stronger/more efficient loco?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
lms8f48773
Guest





PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Tony,

I made the mistake yesterday evening of looking at the internet chat site to which you subscribe.

Firstly, my apology for the initial knee-jerk reaction to your earlier criticism was sincerely meant and did not, I think, merit the condescension of your subsequent comments.

You remind me of a lecturer at my first university who liked nothing more than to show off his own erudition whilst pouring scorn on the efforts of his undergaduates. At age 19 I found his negative criticism hurtful and discouraging: 30+ years later it simply infuriates me. The one good thing to come out of it was to make me determined that I would never do anything of the sort to my own students in my subsequent academic career. This is not Cambridge!

We have already had some pusillanimous and ill-intentioned internet comment from another member of what I take to be your "home" railway. You know my name, my telephone number
and the fact that I am a volunteer on the SVR. I find it rather sad that you choose to take cover behind semi-anonymity in order to fire off your unhelpful volleys.

As I said to you, I would never have become involved with 82045 if I had thought it in any way a hopeless case. Whatever you think about this particular class of locomotive, I would point out that it is intended only for service on preserved lines where it should prove more than competent to do what is required and where a more puissant machine has no chance to show off what it can do. I have fired Class 2 locomotives on many occasions on the Severn Valley, and I can tell you that - excellent as they are - on a wet rail and with (sometimes) eight coaches behind the drawbar, the extra bit of "welly" that a Class 3 would provide would be more than welcome.

I think also that you have failed to grasp the fundamental thinking behind this project. The most modern BR Standards in preservation are now all but 50 years old. Do you seriously believe that, in another 50 years (probably much less), the engines we have now will be able to sustain regular service even on preserved railways? Unless you have decided that there is no future for working steam railways anyway, then I would say that you, and others of your persuasion, are simply doing the Dance of Death around what remains of our loved and treasured steam heritage.

We know that we have many difficulties to face with 82045, and of course you are entitled to your opinion. But negative criticism is, in my own opinion, the pits!

Chris Proudfoot
Back to top
not-commissioned!



Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Porto Alegre Brazil

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The profile of this project appears to need raising. The occasional artical in SVR NEWS wont raise the £1.25mill required, And this thread doesn't look like its helping to me.

Some good points have been raised about how one donates but alot seems to me to be unhelpful.

obviously, this is just my opinion and i will now return to my position of observer of this thread.
_________________
Goodnight Irene!!
BRFC PRIDE OF THE WEST COUNTRY!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyW



Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your response Chris. I read your comments with interest.

I would point out that this particular forum does not require anybody to actually identify themselves by a real name. Indeed, most people on this forum are anonymous unless you aware of certain nicknames. That you may or may not have worked out who I am is an admirable piece of detective work on your part, but I am not sure what it actually achieves. Had the moderators of this forum made personal identification mandatory then I would have complied with that requirement. Had you asked who I was then I would have told you. It really is not an issue to me.

It is noteworthy that you have chosen to attack me personally rather than actually respond to the comments that I have made in any kind of detail, but I am not surprised.

I have no issue at all with your choice of locomotive, and would agree that it is sensible choice for the type of job you intend it to do. However, I do take issue with your statement that you will find a ready market for multiple copies.

Your suggestion that steam locomotives that are over 50 years old will "die" is, in my view, ridiculous. How do you know? Anything can be repaired. I know of no locomotive that has been removed from traffic due to old age, only an unwillingness to destroy its original material. Can you explain Truro's long and active life, still working on the national network? By your reckoning it should have been stuffed and mounted decades ago.

I suggest that you re-read the postings by other people in this debate - "economics of the madhouse" was my favourite comment by far - and perhaps realise that I am not alone in my views.

What you say about me does not matter, but the arrogance of your postings here would not persuade me to open my wallet under any circumstances.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boldford



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 2729
Location: Glad to be no longer stuck on that linear parking lot known better as the M6

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TonyW wrote:
I would point out that this particular forum does not require anybody to actually identify themselves by a real name.
Although the most prolific posters seem to have no concerns about their identity being known.
TonyW wrote:
"economics of the madhouse" was my favourite comment by far
Very self congratulatory! And a phrase that could be applied to virtually the whole heritage railway movement. Without the free labour given by volunteers financial collapse would be inevitable.

I think we also need to consider the facts that more and more "heritage railway" operations are appearing up and down the country. The majority of these are far too small to be able to make use of the remaining "unallocated/unrestored" steam fleet. If these lines are to operate the intensity of service they aspire to, new build will be required. Whether or not that would be BR Std Class 3s remains to be seen.

Ignoring 82046 and onwards for the moment, 82045 will continue to get my practical support.
_________________
There are two kinds of people.

1: Those who back up their hard drives.
2: Those who have never had a hard drive crash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Wright



Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
Location: Ickenham

PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must confess to being apprehensive about joining this rather acidic debate. However, I do so if only to signal my support for the 82045 project. Sometime back, I was discussing with a colleague what engine we would build if cash was no object. Having dismissed a Webb compound and mussed a little over 18000, my boyhood favourite (along with Crossley buses), we settled on a Standard Class 3 Tank. To me they are the ideal engine for the Severn Valley. Light, small, economical and powerful, they must have been and enginemanís dream. I applaud the decision of the group to build one and hope I will survive long enough to see it in traffic. I regret I will be unable to give it much in the way of financial support, my limited resources being more inclined towards the suck/squeeze/ bang/ puff variety of locomotive rather than the external combustion types.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SVR-Online Forum Forum Index -> Motive Power - Steam All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 3 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group