|
I can see both sides (or all three). If you want to correct a problem, you should start with a "clean copy". Then see how that wears. Then see how to correct the original part so that it stays constant during use. As a programmer, we were always taught to leave the environment as we found it - tapes closed and units released, memory released, disks released, etc (obviously, a concept of the distant past!). During testing, you went from the original scenarios and tried to break it. If you broke it, you attempted to fix it in the original program, and follow the testing you have done to ensure you didn't introduce new "features" and that the original bug had been corrected. That's why you made test plans. OTOH, Pullman wanted to correct the 90% rule-scenarios, and you can't blame those that are on the ground for being more pragmatic. Burlington just wanted to shut up the customers, and fix it for free. I sense the feeling from Budd that Pullman was intentionally making life difficult. Not surprising nor unusual. Budd did the same thing, created a test plan (these are found in the test reports for Budd, BTW, a few dozen metal filing drawers filled with such), presented it to CB&Q and CB&Q then explained it to Pullman (occasionally, the Pullman rep was in the room). Budd explained the process, and explained the costs (in money, time, and the combination of both as man-hours by CB&Q employees). CB&Q, being CB&Q, attempted at every turn to reduce the costs and to reduce the time. They were responsive to customer complaints, indeed, that is the only reason Budd as there - people had complained. Commonwealth was also brought it. I feel, reading this, the frustration in the Budd reports. Been there, and been the scapegoat for testing recommended but denied with the resulting issues. We called them "features", customers were not amused. I've been on all sides of this triangle or square (with commonwealth brought in). You usually end up taking a bite or three, and give free support, that's what you used to do to keep customers happy. I've been in just about every level of IT, and discipline, and this happened time and time again. Testing is a very underrated talent, you can see the thinking in these reports. It's funny how different engineering disciplines follow similar paths in troubleshooting and testing. There are, not surprisingly given the Budd & Q relationship) a *lot* of Test reports related to the Burlington. From the mattresses on the Slumbercoaches, to truck issues, odors, window seals, and, just about all parts of a car. Somewhere, there is an index, but as with most such, the index usually doesn't provide all the details necessary to determine interest, and going through one-by-one is usually the best process. But going through all those drawers is going to be a back, neck, and other ache. Interesting too, is that many of the test reports provide some operational data - like the speed recorders for these trips, consists, etc. It's not all technical graphs, charts, and results. At 11:15 AM 2/17/2013, jeff worones wrote: As a mechanical engineer, I found that very interesting Bob! My first thoughts went to how would I fixthe problem. Pullman was correct to insist on worn wheels, for that would probably be the norm. Thanks for sharing. __._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ |