Leader model

gives a brief history.

Cheers Richard

: >

: > 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 : : 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.

"Remploy" and the like?...

: : Jerry, (a) don't make assumptions about folks you don't know as you will

I don't make assumptions, I make comments in reply to what has been said previously, if you don't like that FACT then it is you who has the problem not me!

: 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. :

IYO of course, but as you are making assumptions about folks you don't know as you will be invariably wrong... :~)

Until you accept that all people have been taught over the last 30 odd years has been fundamentally wrong you will always be part of the current problem, I'm not saying that - to go back to your original premise - that nationalisation (in the UK) had not problems but that the problems were/are not caused simply because the business/industry is state owned, that was Thatcher's simplistic answer and allowed her to sell off (cheaply) such industries so that, amongst other aims, she could fund tax give-a-ways.

: > [1] aka shareholders! : : 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. :

Care to run that past me again, oh and could you do so in English this time....

Just found this....

Periander wrote: [...]

Sorry for using your phrase "the job of business is...", since it has caused some misunderstanding of my point(s).

I distinguish between the motivations of the shareholders/owners, and the function of the business. When you offer the proverbial carrot to the donkey, the donkey thinks its job is to eat the carrot, but its actual job is to haul the wagon.

Cheers,

wolf k.

"simon" wrote

There have been numerous instances over the years of 'businesses' being opened mainly to create employment, although they may also have other (often community) benefits. Most are funded by external bodies, grant-aided or similar.

John.

Doesnt matter where it comes from. Heres some examples although am sure others could give better ones :- money laundering, rich relative with hopeless relative, sugar daddy with sugar babe - I wish....

cheers, Simon

We know, but was jerry lucky, economic with his typing or really that pedantic in avoiding mentioning BR 100001 as LMS 100001 :-)

Cheers, Simon

Holy, at first I thought I'd tripped and fallen into rec.crafts.metalworking., then I realised it wasn't gun-related or too awfully red-necked, merely a difference of opinion. Mike in BC

You are not that pedantic then are you? Have a closer look at what you just wrote.

;-P

Kevin Martin

Was the original number chosen by Riddles to allow for all the steam classes before there was a production mainline deisel. not many people know that :-)

Cheers, Simon

Yes, but it was 10,000 not 100,000.

By the way, there had been a previous 10,000. An obscure 2-4-0 which had been used by Aspinall of the L&YR. It has an extended tender & combined saloon as an inspection train. Scrapped by 1924.

Kevin Martin

In message , simon writes

I thought the LMS had lots of steam locos numbered between 10000 and

Learn something new everyday - or reread it. Summary of numbering allocation :- At grouping Midland 1 - 4999 LNWR 5000 - 9999 L&YR 10000 - 12999 Scottish 14000 - 17000

Yes I know it was 10001, just slppy at teh keybud as usual. The claim about Riddles initially sugesting 100001 was subtle joke. Sorry.

Cheers, Simon

Having ridden on the footplate of a modern standard gauge oil fired steam loco in Switzerland, I would suggest that this is probably feasible. The fireman did little more than sit in his seat and twiddle a joystick controlling the burners whenever the driver prompted him that he was about to open/close the regulator. Quite a few oil-fired locos on narrow gauge mountain lines in Switzerland are already one-man operated, although the driver retains control over the burners. The difference here is that the gradients are often pretty uniform and hence there is very little variation in steam demand. So the burners can be set and left.

David at

"David Randles" wrote

That sounds like over-manning to me; why couldn't the regulator be connected directly to that 'joy-stick' to allow the burners to be adjusted automatically.

John.

Because the fireman would still be needed anyway?...

Up to a point, yes. This goes back to the question a few posts back up: Would it be possible to replace the fireman on an oil-fired steam loco with a computer? The answer is, clearly, that it would indeed be possible. It's just that, in this particular case, they hadn't!

However, a direct mechanical linkage wouldn't work, as the burners have to be adjusted *before* the regulator is opened or closed. So it needs a system whereby the mechanism operating the burner can anticipate demands from the regulator, either by being verbally informed of them by the driver (in the case of a human fireman) or by some form of AI programmed into a computer. So it's not as simple as you might think - this is one of the situations where two humans communicating with each other can do something very easily but a computer would find it quite difficult.

Mark

Because there's more to the job than that.