Leader model

Surely wanting all of those just goes without saying?

: > The second man was kept on to look after the steam heat boiler in the : > diesel and then to keep the driver company until DOO came in

1980's. : >

: : The Unions wanted the boiler looking after, it was never intended to need : looking after.

Total bollox! The fact that early diesel locos were fitted with water scoops to replenish the steam heating water tank whilst the train was on the move proves you totally wrong - never mind the fact that, if adjustments were required, the controls of the steam heating boiler were not even in the cab never mind on the drivers side of the cab...

Oh good, thats exactly why am not so keen. Teutonics - big solid ungainly looking things that deserve their name, can see their appeal but prefer the elegance of Deely.

cheers, Simon

If we restrict ourselves to SR, I'd sooner have an original Merchant Navy with illuminated running gear than a Leader, especially after learning that my grandmiother travelled behind one when she visited England in 1950. I think a lot of non-SR fans would buy one for its novelty value. Also a

1Co-Co1.

(kim)

: : If we restrict ourselves to SR, I'd sooner have an original Merchant Navy : with illuminated running gear than a Leader, especially after learning that : my grandmiother travelled behind one when she visited England in

1950.

But that would not have been an original Merchant Navy, by 1950 the air-smooth (not streamlining [1]) casing would have gone through a couple of variations at least.

A (1941 batch) Merchant Navy in as built condition [2] (probably 21C1 [35001] as it seems to be in photographic grey);

35027 Portland in 1951; The differences are obvious! :~)

But all things considered, yes an un-rebuilt MN would make a good model for both SR followers and collectors, in fact it surprises me that Hornby have not offered such a model...

[1] Bullied only ever referred to it as air smoothing, the idea was to make it possible to clean the cladding by passing through carriage washing plants. [2] one can tell that it's a very early example by the horse shoe "Southern" name-plate on the smoke-box door, these plates were changed quite soon after entering service to a full circle - this was done due to the original plates being like upside down horse shoes, thus tempting bad luck!

: : 35027 Portland in 1951; :

Hmm, me thinks that should have read 35027 *Port Line* in 1951... Duh!

Christopher A. Lee wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It is not the job of business to create employment, it is the job of business to create wealth for the financial investors in that business.

It is not the job of business to create employment, it is the job of business to create wealth for the financial investors in that business.

It is not the job of business to create employment, it is the job of business to create wealth for the financial investors in that business.

It is not the job of business to create employment, it is the job of business to create wealth for the financial investors in that business.

It is not the job of business to create employment, it is the job of business to create wealth for the financial investors in that business.

Part of the wholesale failure of every single nationalised industry can be ascribed to the forgetting of that very simple yet funamental rule. Furthermore I remind myself (any any others who may have forgotton) that an efficient business employing "x" workers is a damned sight better assest for the economy and the comunity than an inefficient business that goes to the wall and employs "0".

Back then there was not that much difference between the NE of US and the UK lots lines and passenger trains on them for instance.

Chris

: >

: > Very true, but usually comparing UK to US practice get comments like "not : > comparing like-for-like" etc, whereas UK and European practice generally : > speaking only differs in detail. : >

: >

: Back then there was not that much difference between the NE of US and : the UK lots lines and passenger trains on them for instance. :

Rubbish, the NA and NE had and still have totally different needs, the modes of operation were and still are totally different.

[...]

Once is enough.

It's the job of a business to supply the needs and desires of its customers as efficiently (not necessarily as cheaply) as possible. If it does that, it doesn't matter squat whether it's owned by the state or by investors, because it will produce a financial return on the investment. That finacial return is not wealth, BTW, it's just money. Money is just a method of tracking the production and distribution of wealth.

But money is a very crude and therefore misleading method of tracking wealth, because a) it counts only wealth exchanged for money; and b) it doesn't distinguish between cost and price. One of the consequences is a belief that as long as there is a positive financial return, the business has been "efficient", ie, has not wasted resources. Since a positive financial return (in every case I've studied, anyhow) entails "externals", that belief amounts to a quaint superstition, one that is lethal in the long run.

In any case, business (private or public) cannot and does not create employment, it only responds to customer demands. It's customers that create employment. Thus, to "stimulate" the economy you must increase customer demand. For some reason, this side of the economic equation has been neglected by the classical economists epitomised by Milton Friedman, perhaps because one of its necessary components is good wages, which Friedman (a man of singularly limited imagination) could only see as a cost. Wages are income, and income is not an economic cost, it's the only driver of a money-based economy. As income levels drop as our economy falls, that lesson will be driven home, painfully.

Similarly, Friedman and his followers cannot conceive that "the environment" is anything other than a cost, since one has to spend money to reduce negative effects on the environment. It should be obvious that without an environment, there is no economy to measure, by Friedman's principles or any others. Anyone who thinks that you must choose between "the economy" and "the environment" is so out of touch with reality as to be certifiably insane.

But this is not the place for a basic course in economics.

Cheers,

wolf k.

Thank goodness for that - its way past me. However would love to point out that a business may well be created soley to create jobs, it does depend on the owners wishes.

Cheers, Simon

"simon" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@bt.com:

Nope, quite wrong, a business that is created simply to create jobs will fail, it is inevitable as it will not make suffient money to keep it's employees in business. If on the other hand the business is in business to create wealth (and it does so) then it shall remain in business and consequently potentially be able to employ people.

... and wolf (with genuine respect to you as a person) what you said was nothing more than an extension of the fundamental rule I suggested.

: >> But this is not the place for a basic course in economics. : >>

: >> Cheers, : >>

: >> wolf k. : >

: > Thank goodness for that - its way past me. : > However would love to point out that a business may well be created : > soley to create jobs, it does depend on the owners wishes. : : Nope, quite wrong, a business that is created simply to create jobs will : fail, it is inevitable as it will not make suffient money to keep it's : employees in business. If on the other hand the business is in business : to create wealth (and it does so) then it shall remain in business and : consequently potentially be able to employ people.

Many *non profit-making* companies (which is what I took Simon to mean) have survived longer than those that were run to create wealth for their investors, the Co-Op being a prime example, for the simple reason that the profits have either been shared out (to those who actually create the income, thus giving them a greater incentive to further improve) or have simply been re-invested in the structure of the company - the problem is that a investor lead company is only worth what it's share value is and that can go 'south' PDQ if the investors think that they can get a better return elsewhere or that their money is at risk.

: : ... and wolf (with genuine respect to you as a person) what you said was : nothing more than an extension of the fundamental rule I suggested. :

With respect he was actually saying the exact opposite to what you were trying to suggest, you are obviously still a firm believer in the (now discredited) teachings of Friedman - and his disciples, Thatcher and Reagan - to see that you are completely wrong, what you suggest has actually brought the world to were it is today. Funny how those countries that (still) have a certain degree of planed/managed economies seem to coping far better with the economic ills that infest the world at the moment...

Erm no, the owner may wish to continue the business by providing aditional money.

Cheers, Simon

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:20:41 -0500, Wolf K said in :

Not really. It's the job of a business to deliver money to its shareholders. Anything else is largely incidental.

Guy

It has to earn that money first, only then can it either pay it's "carpet-baggers" [1] or (re-)invest.

[1] aka shareholders!

"simon" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@bt.com:

And that money comes from where? Tree at the bottom of the garden perhaps. pot to be found at the end of a rainbow? ;-)

"Jerry" wrote in news:gmd51a$1nf $ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org:

In other words it is a profit making business that is fundamentally the same as any other business. It is in business for the benfit of its investors (in this case the "members" - as was when the co-op societies were set up) and that it does so by way of making an operating profit in its business.

Jerry, (a) don't make assumptions about folks you don't know as you will invariably wrong and (b) Wolf was making the point that businesses cater for customers - yes quite right, what he didn't address is why businesses cater for customers oh and (c) the economic ills of today have much more complex origins than you've addressed.

"Jerry" wrote in news:gmda06$r5$1 @news.motzarella.org:

Jerry we know that you are somewhat narrow minded in your opinions who-ever try to work out if you can how businesses get started and are maintained and what role shareholders (business owners) play in these processes.