| Re: Is our consultant class too qualified and memberised for its good? Posted by stuving at 10:05, 13th September 2026 |     |
Noting that RailEI features in that list, and for those that are not up to date, earlier this year the Permanent Way Institution converted itself into the Railway Engineering Institution. There is a new, rebuilt, web site and one of the side effects of that is that (as far as I can see) everything in their "knowledge hub" - including local meetings - is now only accessible to members. if that is entirely true, and remains so, it's rather a shame as they were a useful source of detailed (and true!) information.
| Re: Is our consultant class too qualified and memberised for its good? Posted by TaplowGreen at 09:11, 13th September 2026 | |
I was struck on Instagram this morning by the long lists of qualifactions and memberships of a significant proportion of the LinkedIn contributors and responders on a post I shared earlier. I have redacted the names, and these are NOT the person I quoted earlier, where I was able in a 100 word summary to encapsulate the gist of what he was saying. Just look at these:
[redacted] CEnv, FEI, FISEP, CMILT, CMVP, MSc, CRWM
[redacted] MAPM, MRailEI, MIET, MIfSE, ACIRO, MCIM
and someone who bangs his drum in a different style:
[redacted] "Senior Industry Expert"
Sums up Linkedin to a tee - it's become the home of ego, bullshit bingo, generally showing off and "look at me" type inspirational dissertations.
Following your name with a list of qualifications/membership like that is little more than willy waving.
I keep my (free) membership going as a means of keeping in touch with people I've interacted with in business over the years but other than that, rarely visit it.
There's a hilarious book called "The State of LinkedIn" which is well worth a read, and some great parodies too - enjoy this one!
https://x.com/StateOfLinkedIn/status/1989042552134148365?s=20
| Is our consultant class too qualified and memberised for its good? Posted by grahame at 08:58, 13th September 2026 | |
I should spend more time on LinkedIn and Instagram, and perhaps less on Facebook; I am content to remain at my current level of contributor activity here on the Coffee Shop though I suspect I should be stepping up elements of my coding work to modernise and help raise the visibilty and navigability of our resource.
I was struck on Instagram this morning by the long lists of qualifactions and memberships of a significant proportion of the LinkedIn contributors and responders on a post I shared earlier. I have redacted the names, and these are NOT the person I quoted earlier, where I was able in a 100 word summary to encapsulate the gist of what he was saying in 3,000. Just look at these:
[redacted] CEnv, FEI, FISEP, CMILT, CMVP, MSc, CRWM
[redacted] MAPM, MRailEI, MIET, MIfSE, ACIRO, MCIM
and someone who bangs his drum in a different style:
[redacted] "Senior Industry Expert"
For sure, we (who are on LinkedIn) all have to (or, rather, really need to) indicate what we are, and give at least a clue as to our background. These days, now that I am retired from so many elements, I have chosen to say no more than "Webmaster and Administrator at Great Western Coffee Shop Passenger Forum"; I have no rail industry qualifiactions what so ever - I didn't even study Geography as far as 'O' level, and I have just a lowley Batchelor's degree. You will pick up from my profile that I'm a director of TravelWatch SouthWest (a 3 year term from December 2024 to 2027) but I don't do headlining that.
Are there too many different qualifications, learned bodies, interested parties, meetings, committees and so forth for our own good in the rail industry? Or has it got so complicated we need them all?
Edited to correct typos
