D1001

On 15/03/2024 at 12:47, KeithMacdonald said:

@D1001 - I appreciate your frustration!

 

Hopefully CloudFlare can filter-out those FaecesBorg bots (and others).

 

I appreciate this might be relevant (if you are already commited to a hosting company) - but for anyone hosting their own webservers, or in charge of their own network, a very good and cheap solution is to use PiHole for all DNS lookups, as that acts as a sinkhole for a lot of bot traffic.

Thank you Keith. I will look in to that if/when I move forward with BRDatabase.

I am adding cloudflare to my website - this is a service that will hopefully root out unwanted bots and increase security. It will take time and I'm not sure that I will be able to get the website up and running this month but things are happening behind the scenes.

As an additional to the above, I am including reports of livery changes too. This, again, is a WIP and will take some time to complete, so please bear with me.

10 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

I think there's still a glitch in Northwich or Shoeburyness somewhere as the LT&S Class 79 tanks are still showing some at Northwich and the dates between the tables at the top and bottom of the shed page don't match up.

The information on Northwich seems very fuzzy as the other sites I have looked at don't always give definite dates. I wonder if anyone from the 8E Railway Association has any information?

OK - got that - I use cache files to reduce the load on the database and when something changes, I need to delete the cache files so they can be refreshed. Guess what I forgot to do!

3 hours ago, Devo63 said:

I sent an email to the website sometime last year (maybe earlier) regarding the entry for GWR 6007 'King William III'. The entry states that this locomotive was in service from 03/1928 until 09/1962. The original 6007 (from lot 243) was written off in an accident on 15th January 1936 and condemned in early March of the same year. Lot 309 (03/36) was for a replacement, new build, engine carrying the same name and number. It may have included some parts from the original build in its construction but how much is not recorded. 6007 would have only been 26 years old at the time of scrapping.

 

Dave R.

Thanks Dave - I have added the new loco - this has been on my list for ages!

2 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

I'm a regular user to the site and find it a fabulous resource, so I wish it well. These large endeavours are inevitably 'best efforts', and I don't suppose anyone should expect them to be perfect. Continuous improvement is the guiding principle.

 

"Continuous improvement" should be my motto but unfortunately it's "Stop tinkering, you'll only break it!"

21 hours ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Thanks for all your good work. I have used the site on many occasions and found it a good resource but as with everything else try to cross-reference where possible.

 

There are some occasional date problems with shed codes. 

I noticed one today on the LT&S 4-4-2T where some were shown as allocated to 13D Northwich. 

The CLC sheds had LNER codes to 1950 when they were for a short while proposed to become 13 group. Within a few weeks this was changed to put them into existing LMS groups.

The 13 group on the LMS covered LT&S and North London sheds. When the LT&S was transferred to the ER at the start of 1950 the sheds became 33 group with being Shoeburyness changed from 13D to 33C.

It appears that the 'From' date on Northwich as 13D is incorrectly shown as being in 1935, not 1950.

 

Eric

 

 

Thanks Eric, I have fixed that one now. It's always a bit of a headache with the depots that changed hands or where dual-owned/shared between companies.

Wahay! I haven't got time to test it thoroughly, but I think it is up and running again. Please let me know if you have any problems.

I've been doing a lot of work behind the scenes in an attempt to fix the problems with the sites pages on brdatabase.info and last night (tuesday 23rd), I completed changes for the depots/sheds pages - I will upload them tonight when I get back from work. The fixes are an interim measure as I am developing a revamped website with faster response times and better data.

I seem to recall I sent you the above information in a message via the brdatabase forum and that because it was under used you removed the forum. Maybe if you reintroduced it you will get more dialogue?

The forum is under used but it is still there. I've done a search on it but there is no mention of 41222. The latest version of the database (which I will get up in the next few weeks) has more allocations for 41222 but not mentioning Blechley - it is likely that it went to 1E during my 'black hole' period in late 1949 early 1950. That will be fixed before Christmas too.