Left for Titfield!

[Edwardian]

 No doubt such organisations have done, and can still do, much good. That makes it all the greater pity when they refuse to evolve to be inclusive, and thereby do harm. Personally, I feel that any christian aligned organisation that causes hurt, harm or oppression by exclusionary attitudes acts out a sort of doctrinal conservatism that owes more to the prejudiced attitudes of past generations than to Jesus's mission on earth (historically or as Son of God, take your pick), and is essentially being unchristian and, therefore, rather missing the point.

 

I would remind them that ...

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

Well, it seems easy enough to find ways to knock the Salvation Army, if you so wish, but to me, the good that they do in this world outweighs any perceived wrongs, that might mark them out as perhaps lagging a bit behind current societal thinking.

 

I don't personally wish to encourage any more debate on this and I'm sorry for drifting off topic again, but that's just my take on it. Alternative viewpoints are (clearly) available.

 

Ironic, perhaps, that there would have been fewer dissenting opinions as to the value of their work, back in the era that the Titfield Thunderbolt was filmed!

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

From a purely practical standpoint, I feel that, whilst I would (naturally) prefer the SA to be fully inclusive, any religiously based organisation (not just Christian) faces dilemmas from scriptural prohibitions on certain lifestyles, and that limits the pace of liberalisation. 

 

It's not as if minorities don't have anywhere else to turn and some organisations specialise in helping them, in some cases, actively prioritising them over the sort of people the Salvation Army does help.

 

Not contributing to specific charities on the grounds that they have some catching up to do regarding fast changing societal attitudes is a personal choice. However, if we all stop supporting such  capable organisations as the SA, on the basis of needs they currently don't fulfil, and disregard those they do; it will do far more harm than good. The demand that they currently satisfy would be redirected elsewhere, and more liberal, but less established outfits, might struggle to cope.

 

Organisations are made up of people, and many people have opinions that need updating, some of which haven't yet been identified by the vanguard. Some adjust faster than others but we must never forget that attitudes some parts of society has moved on from don't cease to exist in others just because public expression of them is no longer deemed acceptable. As we try to recognise the needs and aspirations of ever smaller minorities, carrying enough of the tabloid-reading "mainstream" along to make real change stick, may become more rather than less difficult.

 

John

Edited March 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

Wow, talk about thread drift! 

[PaulRhB]

Jumping back on topic you’ve got plenty of time to read all about the film in Simon’s excellent little book. Available from all good bookshops including the one named for the film  

 

 

[Edwardian]

Apologies for dipping into the drifting thread.

 

Back to the good old Nineteen Fifties and polio, chemical castration and the Suez Crisis, but also, more happily of things we'd rather remember, such as this .....

 

 

And, a personal favourite of the same vintage (or is that 'veteran'?), this ...... 

 

 

Now, wouldn't it be great if those Good People at Rapido made those?

[The Stationmaster]

The National Motor Museum, is your friend for official British definitions relating to vehicles -

 

Veteran - built before 31 December 1904

Edwardian - built between 1 January 1905 and 31 December 1918.  Note*

Vintage - built between 1 January 1919 and 31 December 1930

Certain types of car built in the years between 1930 and the end of WWII are referred to as 'Post Vintage Thoroughbred'

Classic Car - not necessarily defined by period and open to interpretation (often it appears to be an interpretation in the eye of the beholder  ).

 

Note * In respect of cars the term 'Veteran' is often applied to those officially classified as 'Edwardian'

 

Motor cycles - as classified by the Vintage Motor Cycle Club -

Pioneer - dating from before 1905

Veteran - for the period 1905 - 1915

Vintage - machines built late but before 1931 

 

 

In the film 'Genevieve'. The Darraq driven by John Gregson was built in 1904 so was therefore Veteran.  However the Spyker driven by Kenneth Moore was built in 1905 so was therefore 'Edwardian' according to the National Motor Museum definition.   So perhaps the latter might be the ideal horseless carriage for a particular member of RMweb who has recently noted its film appearance as one of his favourites  ?

Edited March 20, 2021 by The Stationmaster

[Ian Morgan]

The Salvation Army and Basingstoke have a little history

 

https://patrickmurfin.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-basingstoke-riots-of-1881the-army.html

 

http://www.friendsofthewillis.org.uk/index.php/articles-by-friends/the-massagainians

 

In 1881, Basingstoke had a population of less than 7000. Over 3000 people took part in the riots.

 

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The National Motor Museum, is your friend for official British definitions relating to vehicles -

 

Veteran - built before 31 December 1904

Edwardian - built between 1 January 1905 and 31 December 1918.  Note*

Vintage - built between 1 January 1919 and 31 December 1930

Certain types of car built in the years between 1930 and the end of WWII are referred to as 'Post Vintage Thoroughbred'

Classic Car - not necessarily defined by period and open to interpretation (often it appears to be an interpretation in the eye of the beholder  ).

 

Note * In respect of cars the term 'Veteran' is often applied to those officially classified as 'Edwardian'

 

Motor cycles - as classified by the Vintage Motor Cycle Club -

Pioneer - dating from before 1905

Veteran - for the period 1905 - 1915

Vintage - machines built late but before 1931 

 

 

In the film 'Genevieve'. The Darraq driven by John Gregson was built in 1904 so was therefore Veteran.  However the Spyker driven by Kenneth Moore was built in 1905 so was therefore 'Edwardian' according to the National Motor Museum definition.   So perhaps the latter might be the ideal horseless carriage for a particular member of RMweb who has recently noted its film appearance as one of his favourites  ?

Though, AIUI, where production of a model commenced in one period, but continued into the next without significant alteration, a vehicle may be considered to belong to the earlier classification. I think this tends mainly to apply to certain models dating from 1931-35 that had been introduced in the late1920s. Whether that's "official" or merely pragmatic I know not. 

 

I think the definitions may have been revised (backwards?) and possibly expanded over the decades, though. When I was in my teens, the definition (perhaps among the general populace rather than those with greater knowledge) seemed to be that Veteran was anything made up to the end of WW1, and Vintage from that point to the end of 1935. I don't recall the term Edwardian being used back then.

 

On Rolls Royces, the borderline between vintage and not was (and may still be) held by some devotees to be defined by whether the RR on the radiator shell was red or black, i.e pre- or post- the death of Sir Henry Royce in 1933.

 

John

Edited March 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

I’d love decent models in any scale of Genevieve, and Ambrose’s Spyker. If only they could be made to work on the Faller car system...

 

Before I drift off topic, my thoughts on the duplication of Lion are that, civil service pay allowing, I’d ideally get Hornby’s Lion, preferably in a Rocket-style pack with coaches, and Rapido’s Thunderbolt, complete with rolling stock to recreate the climax of the film.

[Edwardian]

31 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Though, AIUI, where production of a model commenced in one period, but continued into the next without significant alteration, a vehicle may be considered to belong to the earlier classification. I think this tends mainly to apply to certain models dating from 1931-35 that had been introduced in the late1920s. Whether that's "official" or merely pragmatic I know not. 

 

I think the definitions may have been revised (backwards?) and possibly expanded over the decades, though. When I was in my teens, the definition (perhaps among the general populace rather than those with greater knowledge) seemed to be that Veteran was anything made up to the end of WW1, and Vintage from that point to the end of 1935. I don't recall the term Edwardian being used back then.

 

On Rolls Royces, the borderline between vintage and not was (and may still be) held by some devotees to be defined by whether the RR on the radiator shell was red or black, i.e pre- or post- the death of Sir Henry Royce in 1933.

 

John

 

I agree!

 

How vintage is this definition?  I don't recall an 'Edwardian' class, I rather thought 'veteran' extended over that period.

 

Not that I'm writing in support of an 'Era System', of course 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

18 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I agree!

 

How vintage is this definition?  I don't recall an 'Edwardian' class, I rather thought 'veteran' extended over that period.

 

Not that I'm writing in support of an 'Era System', of course 

 

 

National Motor Museum and some of it is I believe quite old as debate over the 1905 'boundary' for defining a vehicle as 'Veteran' goes back a long way.  

 

The 31 December deadline for defining a car as 'Vintage' was agreed at the AGM of the Vintage Sports Car Club (VSCC)  in January 1936.  Prior to that the Club's definition of 'vintage' applied to any vehicle more than 5 years old,  and 1931 was suggested as an alternative to 1930 at that AGM but was turned down because of changes in car manufacturing etc during 1931.  Interestingly the VSCC refers to 1908 - 1919 as 'the Edwardian era' and 1931 -1941 as 'Post Vintage Thoroughbred' for selected vehicles (o is the 1908 on their website a typo I wonder?).

 

The Veteran Car Club uses exactly the same definitions and dates as those I posted previously.

 

The confused use of the term veteran for cars built after 1904 possibly comes from Rule changes of the Veteran Car Club.   At some time during the 1950s it changed its rules to allow cars built up to 1916 to be included in its membership details.  Later, in either the 1960s or '70s (it does not quote exact dates) it further changed its rules to allow cars built prior to 1919 to be included in its membership.  Prior to the second change cars covered by that period were being broken up for spares by members of the Club.

 

So the histry of the British definitions is quite clear and their origin can be traced back to the activities and decisions of the two clubs involved of the two clubs.  I can't find the ot rigin of the term Edwardian in respect of cars but it was definitely in use by 1959 as an article in 'Motor Sport' that year used it.  Incidentally thos eforeign sorts use different definitions - but obviously they would wouldn't they?

 

The term 'vintage' in respect of antiques refers specifically to their current age - not when the item was made in terms of a specified period of time.  The specific tome seems to vary but more than 50 years old seems fairly common.  The definition of antique is that the item was made more than 100 years ago.  So for exampl on those scales the Bedford OB and the 14XX would be vintage while Lion/Thunderbolt is antique.

[mdvle]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Now, wouldn't it be great if those Good People at Rapido made those?

 

The factories apparently already dislike making the buses given the effort/reward is poor (they buses are apparently frequently put aside when something more profitable for the factory comes along), so I suspect something likes those with all those detail parts would cause a rebellion.

[Captain Kernow]

One of these in resin would undoubtedly result in a few rural branch line idylls:

 

[Dunsignalling]

I wonder, are we railway enthusiasts the only segment of society that considers the genteel decrepitude of (largely) disused infrastructure to be idyllic.....

 

John

Edited March 20, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Edwardian]

44 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I wonder, are we railway enthusiasts the only segment of society that considers the genteel decrepitude of (largely) disused infrastructure to be idyllic.....

 

John

 

I cherish genteel decrepitude, it is the work of years to achieve it!

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I wonder, are we railway enthusiasts the only segment of society that considers the genteel decrepitude of (largely) disused infrastructure to be idyllic.....

 

John

Have you seen the tv recently it’s full of recycling and salvage programmes! And they charge a lot more for it too  

[Mark Saunders]

16 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Have you seen the tv recently it’s full of recycling and salvage programmes! And they charge a lot more for it too  

Just wait and they will soon be next years repeats!

[Dunsignalling]

27 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Have you seen the tv recently it’s full of recycling and salvage programmes! And they charge a lot more for it too  

Yes, and half of the stuff still looks like rubbish at the end of the process, albeit nicely repainted or reupholstered rubbish.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

14 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

Just wait and they will soon be next years repeats!

Very appropriate!

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

I cherish genteel decrepitude, it is the work of years to achieve it!

In my own case, it didn't seem to require much effort at all, just time....

 

John

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Mark Saunders said:

Just wait and they will soon be next years repeats!

I thought the were already last years repeats..........one day the tail will catch the dog.....

[Mark Saunders]

47 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

I thought the were already last years repeats..........one day the tail will catch the dog.....

 

Proves how memorable some programmes are!

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Have you seen the tv recently it’s full of recycling and salvage programmes! And they charge a lot more for it too  

Yes, and with spotless workplaces, brand new tools and oodles of space & time

 

middle class suburbia, no one could afford to pay the commercial rates to maintain places like that.. indeed few wont begrudge a few coppers to someone knocking up a repair job from someones garage.

I was often told the mark of a good tradesman, is one who is chaotic, disorganised and has his own example as the worst example, as it means he’s busy, customer focussed and doesn't have time to do his own.

only reason they have such luxury workplaces is the TV studio and funding.

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by adb968008

[papagolfjuliet]

19 hours ago, Obi-Jiff Kenobi said:

I’d love decent models in any scale of Genevieve, and Ambrose’s Spyker. If only they could be made to work on the Faller car system...

 

 

Charben's made both in more or less the correct scale, to tie in with the film. You can pick tatty ones up fairly cheaply on ebay in sufficiently good condition to form the basis of a detailing project. https://www.vintagebritishdiecasts.co.uk/3index/cha1-4.htm