PatB

Given that centre throttle pedal arrangements were de rigeur on very sporting machinery in the 1920s and 30s, methinks the little Fordson had ideas well above its station.

I vaguely remember an article, in one of the classic bike mags in the mid 80s, about an aftermarket electrically operated front brake from the 1930s or 40s. Someone had found a NOS kit and, in the interests of research, had fitted it to his Model U (I think it was). It was, predictably, utterly dire but, IIRC, not really any worse than the standard unit.

There's an enormous 16T wagon thread somewhere on RMWeb with loads of photos, many from your era. It should be possible to track down enough info from there alone. Here's the link

I take it they're having trouble finding a Triang motor bogie with the original 2-start worms .

Many of Freezer's rather appealing tailchaser designs assumed a maximum train length of 4 (or even 3) coaches, so the layout in question was not so very far from the norms of the time.

The most junior and expendable engineer in each of the respective manufacturers.

They may, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason, unless the axle loading was something silly. After all, as long as loading gauge restrictions are met, one unfitted 4 wheel wagon, running at unfitted train speeds, is going to behave much like another, given reasonable bearings and maintenance. Given the Scottish penchant for antedeluvian mineral wagon designs, surely the Caley wouldn't have any practical running problems with a reasonably up to date implement wagon.

Maybe they had a reputation for not giving wagons back . More likely might be a loading gauge issue. Did parts of the Caley have particularly restrictive clearances that would be exceeded if the wagon was loaded with any of the portable engines manufactured in GER territory? If so, perhaps a blanket prohibition was the simplest means of dealing with the problem.

I had a not dissimilar experience when toiling up our local railway trail; not especially steep, but a bit relentless. I'd just been overtaken by a group of riders on serious machinery, when we were all passed by what I can only describe as a handsome lady of late middle years, vigorously pedalling a sit up and beg roadster that was probably made for "The Empire" 30 years before I was born. Yes, it had a basket on the front. She breezed by with a cheery "Lovely day for it", in the sort of accent that has caused my memory to insist that she was clad in tweed twinset and green wellies, although this seems unlikely. Well, more unlikely than the rest of it anyway.

Realistically, though, whilst still too frequent, fatal collisions with obstacles are, thankfully, quite rare events. As such, resources may be better spent on projects to improve road/rail separation (elimination of level crossings, basically), and improving crash worthiness of locos and stock. Indeed, in this day and age, how critical is it for the driver to be right at the pointy end? If looking at aircraft tech to improve driver safety, maybe the sort of VR gear that makes drones feasible would be a better option. Indeed, AIUI, driverless train technology is already able to achieve exactly this.

Reading some of the reasons for rejection has bent the needle on my irony meter.

I suspect that Triang's success was primarily based on price, and producing a wider range. The corollary is that a major factor in Trix's lesser reach was also price. IIRC a Trix Pacific was roughly double the price of its Dublo equivalent, which was, itself, very expensive in comparison with a Triang Princess. Trix probably also suffered from its lack of interoperability with anything else. Regardless of any merits of its bodies, and the both-sides insulation, a Trix AC loco wouldn't have been much use to the "serious" modeller using the de facto standard 12V DC, so that's another little bit of market gone.

I've always liked that one a great deal. IIRC the article was titled "For Amusement Only". I do have the issue somewhere, but I think it's in a box buried under a hundred others, so it might as well be on the moon. If I was going to be overly critical, I seem to remember that the platforms of the terminus station were so short that 2 coaches and a GWR 4-6-0 (Dublo Castle?) overhung the ends by a substantial margin, but that's not really the point on something like this, is it?

My Spitfire had what I think was one of their aftermarket bonnets with the GT6 bulge. It wasn't a very good fit and was rather floppy, making lifting it either a gymnastic exercise or a 2 man job. Whoever fitted it had also omitted to drill or cut out the heater fresh air intake, rendering the already somewhat feeble heater somewhat non-functional. I remember Hot Car describing a road test XR3i's handling as "bordering on dangerous" for exactly this reason. Can't remember exactly what year, but it must have been prior to July '83 as that was when I stopped buying the mag because I needed to pour every spare penny into a terrible Austin 7 special.

Ejector seats, whilst they have saved lives, are not kind to the human body. In their usual application, most users tend to be young and with a high level of physical fitness, and can still suffer significant injuries due to the g-forces of the vertical acceleration when the seat fires. I'm not sure what the effects would be on a driver who might, say, be a bit overweight, lack muscle tone and be in their 50s or even 60s. Practicalities aside, I can see there being significant issues with weighing the risks involved in an accidental or unnecessary firing vs the rewards of such a device in a potentially fatal collision.

Screenshot from page 17 of the 1985 edition of 27 Circuits for Scalextric. I mean, it could be an entirely innocent oversight but....

Can't see much left that's boat shaped. Did it burn, leaving that debris mass on the right (as viewed) of the track at the crossing? 10/10 for the classic Jouef station/crossing keeper's house though.

I don't see it as much different from the WSR, in their early days, running a lot of services with repainted Park Royal(?) DMUs. It seemed very mundane and a bit of a disappointment at the time, but in hindsight, they were quite interesting vehicles, and it's regrettable that they've since had to be scrapped. And it was certainly better than no trains to Minehead at all, which seems to be the preference 40+ years on.

A prominent feature on Maunsell era engines. For those who do not know what a snifting valve is, when the regulator of a steam locomotive is closed, a partial vacuum can be created in the cylinders which, in the absence of any other openings, can suck ash and other abrasive residue from the smokebox down the blastpipe. This does the cylinder bores, piston rings and valve faces no good at all. To alleviate the problem, one-way valves (snifting valves) are incorporated, which remain tightly closed under pressure, but open under vacuum, admitting fresh air to the cylinders, rather than the grinding compound that's been through the firebox, tubes and smokebox.

I can do you some very nice, though I say it myself, handmade porcelain goblets which are (astonishingly, as we didn't aim for it) exactly 185 ml, if that helps at all [/shameless plug].

Sounds like every Australian tradie I've ever encountered. Which is why I've spent a fair bit of both time and money, and considerable effort in arranging my life, to become as self-sufficient as possible so I don't have to depend on them. Or, at least, can fix the inevitable lethal bodges when legally obliged to engage a "professional".

Under ideal circumstances I'd agree on the orientation, but we've got a couple of big trees immediately to the west, which give some shading in the afternoon. Not a disastrous amount, but enough to make output drop noticeably after lunchtime. As I can neither afford, nor wish to have them taken down I accept the limitation. The installation still generates about 5x more energy than we can directly use. Battery storage, and lots of it, would make sense, but I can't afford that yet either. When prices come down a bit and my superannuation becomes available it'll be something I seriously consider.

Whilst I haven't published any model railway vids, I occasionally get energetic and film aspects of our pottery business to post online. Given that the most popular video so far has been of a minor disaster when a big mould wasn't quite as well sealed as I thought it was and consequently dumped 100 kg of porcelain slip on the workshop floor, I've come to the conclusion that what people like is seeing stuff go wrong.

Whst I don't remember those particular products, I do remember two distinct varieties of sweet cigarettes being available at least until ~1978. First was a thin, brittle, white stick of slightly sweetened chalk, with a dab of red food colouring on one end. T'other were sticks of something almost recognisable as chocolate, wrapped in what purported to be rice paper, but which was actually slightly less edible than actual Rizlas. I remember the latter variety being given as a class prize, at primary school, for something or other. Even as an 11 year old, my critical thinking faculties found this difficult to reconcile with the regular lectures on the evils of smoking, delivered by the same teacher as presented said prize.

A recent rekindling of an interest in 70s and 80s Scalextric products has made me realise I may be of the last generation to consider it perfectly normal and healthy to emblazon children's toys with ads for tobacco products .