Miss Prism

It's interesting to note the O11/15 sketch on the Parkside website clearly shows the offset hanger, yet they managed to miss reproducing this in the kit. I have 2 built up O11's and another kit waiting to become an O15.

Looks like the Parkside, as supplied, is ok for the non-vac O11, but an O15 will require mods.

(Similarly the new Parkside Mink, as supplied, is ok for V16 and those V12s not fitted, but not ok for V14 (and V13/S2).

The wagon bible does have a photo of a V12 - on page 1 there is a photo of Middle Yard (Acton) around 1920. The second van in the photo (82817 according to the caption) appears to be a V12 with sliding vents.

Ah yes, good spot.

Also a V12 in the background on page 273. This van is 82081 - is vacuum fitted but I am not sure the V-hangers are offset!

I would say yes that is offset.

So perhaps a better question to ask is has anyone seen a vacuum fitted V12/14/16 or 015 that does not have offset V hangers?

That is certainly the question, and I think we can add O11 to that list.

I don't know of any V12 pics fitted with sliding vents, so I think it's impossible to tell when they started to be changed to bonnets. If you're building 4 of them though, it might be an idea to hedge your bets and have 2 of each arrangement!

P.S. Rich - was it not the V14 that had the offset vee? (See below.)

Apologies Miss Prism and the OP, you're are correct. Perhaps I should start a separate thread as I'm finding this subject particularly interesting with regard to terminus design and arrival/departure traffic flow.

Actually, I'm liking the direction of the thread as well (my comment above was in the spirit of humorous commendation rather than criticism), and I think that both 'minor' and 'major' discussions can co-exist beneficially.

P.S. Newford was a terrific layout - but saw it only once (at Watford Finescale).

The thread seems to have changed from Minories to Majories.

I saw the purpose of this thread as being a useful and timely attempt to formulate some rules regarding RMweb imagery, and I think a lot of good progress has been made. Taking up Kenton's point though, a criticism I have of RMweb is that finding such rules involves wading through long threads like this, with its inevitable diversions into arcane territory.

I hope this thread will not be locked until the concise version of the new rules, or at least a draft of them, has become available.

Martin has beaten me to the same question, but we also need to clarify any hotlinking etiquette in connection with the RMweb archive forum.

Andy is obviously OK with hot linking attributed images from Flickr, providing the uploader has allowed the option in the sharing feature. What's the view on asking permission in this case, is it still required or is it deemed to be implicit in the allowing of the option?

Where the uploader has allowed the sharing option, it seems logical that permission is implicit.

Try this for the hotlinking rule:

"Except where an image has been uploaded to a site with provision for the onward use of that image without further requirement, a hotlinked image is not allowed unless the owner's consent has been obtained."

Say for those who upload an image to the gallery and then hotlink to that image from elsewhere?

That's ok, as it is covered by Andy's "Hotlinking your own images from elsewhere (as long as any external site's rules permit this) is fine."

I think you're a few steps behind Miss P.

There is no dispute over the hotlinking of an RMweb-hosted image by another site where the image owner has given permission (and subject to the conditions of that external site of course). Where the image owner has not given permission and is unhappy about the situation is covered by my #7.

Similarly, there is no dispute over the hotlinking on RMweb of an external image where the image owner has given permission, and in such cases it would be common courtesy to provide suitable attribution. (The first part of Martin's #17 takes the case a little further though.)

Andy has clarified (#9) the hotlinking situation from another site where the image owner has given, by the nature of the site the image is posted on, an implied "permission in advance", and where the mechanisms of that site facilitate proper attribution.

The grey area we are trying to clarify is a externally-hosted image hotlinked from RMweb and where that image owner has not given explicit prior permission.

To me it appears you've broken these rules at least once and now try to talk yourself out of it? Am I right?

My apologies if I have broken current rules (reference please?), but to be clear, I have no strong feelings either way about a proposed rule on image hotlinking, although I feel RMweb would not be so 'content-rich' if a blanket ban were to be imposed. If it is not to be permitted (Andy's #3), then as I've already indicated (#4) I'm quite happy to amend such postings I've made to conform, but Andy's #9 clearly indicates a qualified retreat from that blanket edict. What we're trying to arrive at is an articulation that fits desirable/best practice.

A couple of other observations:

- RMweb's software doesn't help Andy's objectives. Currently, it's easier to hotlink an image than it is to do an inline image link.

- To widen the subject, why the focus on images? Is not a thread on the 'Use of RMweb or external text' equally pertinent?

Many sites may not have adequate bandwidth to accommodate high-volume hot linking which affects the performance of those sites.

A fair point. That involves some judgement on the part of the poster though. What we are trying to arrive at here is whether the principle of hotlinking is acceptable, and, if it is, under what circumstances and conditions it is permissible.

Hotlinking someone else's images without consent should not be done and will be removed if seen or reported.

Although I have hotlinked from another site without the specific consent of the original contributor

Hmmm.

So hotlinked images are ok provided they are properly attributed?

(The fact that photobucket/flickr's syntax facilitates this mechanism is incidental and purely fortuitous.)

It is 'enforcable' if the original contributor wished to pursue anyone breaching copyright but whether it's worth the effort is debatable. It's there to say that we do not permit or condone it and would back removal of any image that was being hotlinked to elsewhere to support the originator if required.

So the rule, in terms of what RMweb's responsibilities are, should perhaps be expressed as:

"If other sites hotlink RMweb images without the consent of the original RMweb contributor, RMweb will support that RMweb originator in any request to remove copyright material."

Hotlinking someone else's images without consent should not be done and will be removed if seen or reported.

(Miss P scuttles off to edit a thread.)

I think a middle course might be preferable whereby someone else's hotlinked images are clearly marked as not being the owner of the hotlinker.

Anyone hotlinking to images on RMweb on other sites without the consent of the original contributor on RMweb is not permissible.

The objective is understandable and fair, but unenforceable ("anyone"??) in practice.

Hotlinked images are a potential source of abuse. I hotlinked (note not 'uploaded') to a few (in a recent thread), and whilst copying the image url, or opening the url in a new tab, or inspecting its element, would reveal its source as not being mine, merely 'saving image as' would not.

Guidance?

Edit: the 3 images concerned have now been 'de-hotlinked'.

Nice to see the new Parkside Minks built up, Castle. Looking great. My only comment is about their axleboxes - I know the later 12T V14s had larger ones (9" x 4.5"), but those Parksides look the wrong shape and too big to me. (Also, check your s/c bufferhead diameter - should be 12".)

My usual question, Ken: what does the loco weigh?

45' was a common table size in that era.

The problem with the Cotswold 3-coupled solid chassis is not so much their motoring with newer motors, it's the middle axle holes being drilled higher than the outer ones. Throw them away.

I've got a PC bootup problem. System is XP with a PS2 keyboard with a PS2 connector into the PC's PS2 keyboard port. The system hasn't been used for several months. I suspect the motherboard battery is flat, but I'm not convinced that would explain what happens when I boot.

On booting, the keyboard flashes its lights, which seems to indicate the PC is capable of communicating with the keyboard. I get an initial screen that says "Press DEL to enter setup" (i.e. the BIOS).

My problem is that pressing DEL does not result in any action, i.e. I can't get into the BIOS. (Nor do ESC, F1, F2 etc for that matter.)

I have tried alternative (known to be working) PS2 keyboards, but there is no difference.

It is possible the keyboard PS2 port is blown in some way? (But if so, why does it flash the keyboard's lights?) I have tried booting with the keyboard plugged into the PS2 mouse connector port, but the symptoms remain the same.

Could it be the main power supply in the PC?

Would replacing the motherboard battery help or is this a red herring?

(I haven't yet had time to take the cover off and look inside, although this is the inevitable next step.)

Isn't the Hornby T9 all on 2mm axles?

The earliest Hawksworth coach working on the DN&S I know of is 1952. Generally, they were rare on the line until 1956, and even then, they appeared only as a single Hawksworth in the (usually) 3-coach rake, the other two being early or late Colletts or even old Toplights. DN&S 3-coach trains were a brake 3rd or brake compo plus any two of compo, all 3rd and brake 3rd, subject to their being only one coach in the rake with 1st accomodation. In later days, the order of the coaches in the rake varied, often diverting from the 'classic' DN&S rake with the brake in the middle. The shifting nature of the actual makeup of the DN&S rakes reflected the availability of newer stock relieved from mainline duty, and anything suitable left in the west bay at Newbury was considered fair game.

P.S. Nice curtains, Brian. A complete improvement over Hornby's!

I think it reflects freight being increasingly concentrated on bulk products, for which bogie vehicles makes sense. Interestingly, there has been a considerable increase in 4-wheel passenger stock over the last generation or so.

Having done a quick check, the K's kit end is a 'pseudo' corridor end style, so making it suitable only for a K15 (or K16 if you add a corridor connector). K15s did run on Dean bogies, but many received the 8' American style in their later years.