Establishing appropriate lines of evidence enables us to resolve the challenges faced in engineering geological practice. When considering the lines of evidence used to derive a conceptual site model (CSM), three interlocking themes are: (1) multidisciplinary working, (2) knowledge and experience and (3) lessons from the past. This is explored through case histories. There may be no standard approach and conventional engineering geological skills are not always sufficient; as during the decommissioning of cryogenic gas storage tanks at Canvey Island. Alternatively, there may be reservations about using a standard approach; which led to the unconventional use of chalk fill at Port Solent Marina. In the case of a major oil leak into the Permo-Triassic aquifer, understanding the basic science of the problem explained why the original CSM was too simplistic and informed a change of remedial strategy. Obtaining permits for an underground gas storage facility on a landslide complex on the Isle of Portland required numerous lines of evidence to assess the stability of the slope. Furthermore, new lines of evidence can be added to old data sets as technology develops, such as the use of LiDAR in mapping Cotswolds landslides. In his recollection of the early years of engineering geology in the UK, Professor Peter Fookes, the first Glossop Lecturer, wrote (Fookes & Lee 2017, p. 457): By the middle to the end of the decade [1970s], engineering geology was well established as a discipline in its own right. ... In the following decades new or improved field and laboratory techniques continued to support development of engineering geology as a discipline. But that is another story. Fookes was my PhD external examiner (Privett 1980). After my PhD I was employed as an internal consultant by a major UK contractor. I spend my subsequent working career with a number consultancy firms. My career has spanned the post-1970s period Fookes describes as 'another story' and I took up this theme for my (the nineteenth) Glossop Lecture.