alastairq

That sounds about right. Mind, whilst the ethanol content of fuel is ''up to'' the percentage posted, there's no guarantee one is actually filling up with 10 % ethanol......it could be far less indeed. My local [Esssso] rural large fuel point told me they had instructions to simply 'mix' the E5 that was still in the tanks, and new fills of 95 octane E10. They also didn't change the labels to E10 until sometime after the changeover date....simply because Esso were still supplying [max-E5] 95 octane fuel up here, after that date. I also suspect much of the supply issue [keeping low stocks of fuel has been mentioned by others further up the thread]....stemmed from the observations that, last year especially, during the pandemic, there was a huge reduction in fuel usage [vehicle usage]....Since petrol has a short shelf life, and the constituent mixes of petrol change from season to season [modern-day cars being rather picky prima donnas regarding fuel], petrol retailers may have been reluctant to hold large stocks of a particular season's fuel if sales were depressed, perhaps? The excuse of 'tanker driver shortage', whilst being a fact [and has been for years]....meant that the fuel suppliers couldn't keep up with the vast increase in fuel demand, once we came out of lockdown...No boxes of instantly inflatable tanker drivers being stocked either. I also think we should give turkeys a nice Christmas for once....There's plenty of roadkill out there [Tesco's meat department, for example?] Mind, soon we will have to ration the opening of our freezers, as power demands exceed supply...until, at least, the poorer half of the country cannot afford to buy electricity any more? Then the better off [to quote Guardian, the 'white home owners?'] will have their power supplies restored.... Me? I'd be stuffed, as in my village we have no street lamps.

I recall coming across a Marlin whose owner had made effective use of the [perspex?] panels from redundant telephone boxes....nice & rigid!

I think the broken screws were the result of something far more important going wrong, so to speak...the failure of NR to ensure implementation of procedures, the failure of the existing testing technology, etc etc. etc all conspiring to relegate the track maintenance down to somebody plodding along 'kicking' the fixings. So to speak. In other words, a Systemic failure within NR, which fed down to the staff on the ground.

In the public sector, actually 'retiring' isn't something one does these days. One cannot be 'forced' to retire [by dint of age] in the older accepted sense . [Although, in the past. ''retirement'' is disguised by a failure to meet physical standards, for example?] So until and unless a person submits an official resignation, nothing can be done regarding recruitment or replacement until that day arrives. Which it isn't actually 'forced' to do, in the case of the Civil Service. IE one can submit a resignation, but one can withdraw it at any time... Thus line management is rather hamstrung in respect of recruitment. As TheQ might attest, there are rules within the military & Civil Service [counterparts, we were cheaper than military personnel doing a similar job]....regarding job qualifications. Whether its about degrees, or licence categories or, in my case, the number of years the licence has been held & used, which is partly dictated by law, partly by Military Rules. Currently at my last place of work [5 years gone hence]...the civilian staff shortages [lack of recruitment instigated by both LAbour & Conservative Govts....recruitment freezes, etc, has meant that military personnel have had to be draughted in as support. [That may save on overtime payments, but not on overall staff costs..they get paid more, and need looking after more, which costs. Plus, they 'unfortunately' learn to be civvies, it rubs off, you know!] The legacy of successive Chancellors tying to cut 'public' expenditure....Pay freezes, pay rise limits, recruitment freezes...all is well as long as it works. when it doesn't, Government of the day actually doesn't get to find out, or care, really......as long as it does not directly impinge on them or their sponsors. [A failure to work is seen as someone else's responsibility, not that of the policy makers.]

In my experience, the problem of soft tops and access stem from the need for older designs of soft top to be erected from outside the car? My Dellow has a soft top. Putting it up is like coping with an Erectaset. There is also a 'modern fitment' roll over bar [to US racing standards, slightly cut down as previous owner was much taller than me]...I can 'get in' [insert ?] with the top erected, but that requires me to actually lie across the passenger side in order to get my legs inside. This could not be done with a passenger in situ. It may be possible for a passenger to get in with the driver in situ [me]...but most of the driver's 'cab' is actually intruding on the passenger side anyway. I don't have a side screen set [very expensive to make]....There was a set at one time....last evidenced in a photo taken for a newspaper advert in the early 1990's, before it got snapped up by a yank, and shipped off to the States. Thus, the hoods effectiveness when driving in the rain is marginal. The gear lever stays dry, but that's about all! Also the windscreen wipers are ''of the age'', so pretty naff by modern standards....They work, mainy by ensuring the rain droplets are smeared across the screen as one large vertical puddle, which I can 'see through'... Intermittent wipe is achieved by my left hand twiddling the lever on the Lucas screen mounted wiper motor. Handily placed for any passenge to head-butt if I should stop too quickly. That's if the passenger can actually stick their forehead on their knees in the first place?

The issue of disappearing skills though retirement [or simply getting pee'd off with the situation], has been recognised by the UK Civil service for more than a decade, to my knowledge. For at least a decade and a half, the Civil service as a whole has[via Management Practice documents, official policies] attempted to address the growing problem of skills vanishing, by offering employees various means of continuing their work [IE, keeping their skills in place] under more amenable working conditions...such as part-time, semi-retirement, or even, returning to the workplace after a period of retirement. I'm not referring to the higher end grades/jobs, such as found in the plush office suites of Whitehall, but the lesser grades of posts, found up & down the country, with an awful lot of posts not actually involving desk-driving. The factors which Civil Service departments had no control over were the appallingly low wage levels [certainly when compared to the private sector equivalents], offset by whatever 'benefits' could be hacked out via the CS as a whole. [Nope, the pensions were,and are not, ''non-contributory' as is often thought. The contributions comes via other sources, much like indirect taxation does.] I personally became involved in the process well over 10 years ago now. But failed to get my local management to either [a] acknowledge the burgeoning issue] or be bothered to actually work out a practical solution. My department was indeed facing the issue of the aging, skilled, workforce. All knew it was occuring. But partly because we had an overarching military management [who thought the problem wouldn't exist , possibly because they 'said so?'] who tended to have a limited [2 year or so, ] view of the future..... I banged on for 6 years or more, application after application [to set a policy precedent, really], even getting support from the very top [Whitehall].... I presented argument, facts, projections, you name it. I had full Union support too.....but they saw me as the knowledgeable one, simply because I had trawled the MPDs..or, was bothered enough to do so. I presented to full Colonels, Brigadiers, B2 and B1 Civil service management, etc etc. but no joy, at my Establishment. Even when [in simple terms] told to 'sort it out' by Whitehall, they squirmingly refused.. From a personal viewpoint, having undergone a divorce back then, I could foresee a time when I would struggle, age-wise, to continue to work full time. Yet I also knew whatever pensions I had were minimalist to say the least.....[as was my lifestyle anyway]. So anything I could achieve in terms of getting my Establishment to sort out some sort of reduced time working , within the Civil Service Rules, must be a 'good thing' for an aging worker. In the end, having endured endless persuasion by friends, I simply bit the bullet, and 'up-sticks' and left, taking my pensions as I did. The announcement that I was going [being viewed I suspect as one of the Establishment's 'permanent fixtures'...?] brought, I was told, a bit of a shock wave further up the food chain. For, within the following 12 months something like 25% of the existing work force decided to do likewise. The result ? Instant change of tack... instituting several part-time working schemes, open to all instructors....none of which really resulted in a loss of earnings . The CS semi-retirement scheme does likewise, no actual loss of earnings from when working full time, but a good deal less actual attendance. A lot of my peers took advantage of the schemes available...they wanted to work into their older age [most of my peers were aged well in excess of the 50 mark, a few were actually over 70!]...but didn;t want the hassle of full time attendance. The part-time schemes worked very much in the employers favour as well. A massive reduction in self-certified sickness, or appointments for medical reasons [we were paid regardless....a trip to one's GP cost nothing but a half day away from work, if the appointment was timed well....] Now that sort of thing has almost disappeared, as the aging staff can do all this, effectively, in their own time, of which they have a lot more of. Staff leave also has become more manageable [we were allowed no more than around 22% absences at any one time...so if one wanted a day off, one had to look at the numbers already booked off?] Part-time staff actually finncially beenfitited as well, due to the Civil Service rules concerning when overtime was paid/triggered. The military have specific rules about under what conditions all the training add to be conducted. One of which was, much of had to be done by both day, and night! Driving, obvioulsy, but also vehicle operation, etc. Our Establishment at one point [before I left] had a higher overtime [and ll that went with it] bill than the rest of the Civil Service put together. Just in one Establishment! All 'paid for' by the various militaries...[all our work was in fact, paid for by the various cap badges/hats....RAF, NAvy, RM and Army, even FO and HO...they were our clients, our products being, appropriately & correctly trained personnel].... Indeed, some managers [who had to be present..rules, you know] made enough out of overtime alone to pay off mortgages, etc...Simply because, a lot of what we did during daylight hours, had to be repeated during the night. Problems of working Time directives, military working & driving hours, and so on, complicated matters as well. I should add, much of our work was actually combined with all arms basic training.....so all personnel, having undergone their basic [phase 1] training, then came to us for licences and other skills.....[phase 2]....unlike when I started, when it was a 'select few' who came through our tender hands. Anyhow, I digress... The point being, the skills shortages are not in any way a new thing. The CS saw the reduction in working hours, but retention of skills, as most important....if only to help pass on those skills to the 'up & coming' youngsters? Because of aging populations [workforces?], and difficulties with things like children, care requirements, etc.....part time working has to be the way forwards for a lot of the skills shortage issues. Because of an aging population part time working has to be the way to retain skills, in order to pass them on. But part-time working is seen as the province of the low -paid, far too much. When we read about 'part-time' work numbers, the impression we are given is the harassed single parent juggling with two or three part time jobs, on minimum wage or less, because an employer finds that a cheaper route. When in reality it ought to be an acknowledgement that older folk need to actually be working 'less',due to their physical [& mental] state...but still encouraged to remain within the workplace so that the skills are not lost forever.

But those on low incomes will have less & less...relying on the relatively comfortable middle income folks to buy more & more to compensate. The advantage of having a large number of low income earners is that they can still buy more, keeping the consumerist-driven economy going. By forcing basic living prices up, the low income bracket will therefore spend less on consumables...driving the economy down... The only way to even modestly maintain low income earners' buying power is to slash low income taxes [in my view] Which will upset the middle income comfortables? [Higher income earners won't care less anyway.] As a low income earner [pensions, and not very big ones either], to raise my income , all I have to do is fork out for a medical, and I can go back into the workplace...depriving a younger person of the chance of a job. All higher living prices do is drive poverty levels up, in this day & age. There are too many folk who rely upon some form of State financial assistance. Unfortunately, the State isn't interested in maintaining even a reasonable living standard for those not 'earning'... We have all voted to live in a market economy......[or rather, a 'devil-take-the-hindmost' economy] Because the 'haves' don't like the prospect of subsidising the 'have-nots'.

Oddly, I seem to be receiving loads of ads on here, for ad blockers.....

Is that summat to do with buying furrin' bikes?

I have mixed feelings about IAM [and RoSPA] 'advanced' driving/riding courses. [Maybe because 'driving/riding' has been my sole [almost] work skill, having earned a living of sorts from it. for 45 years?}] I honestly feel that 'instructors', especially volunteer one's, are only as good at instructing, as their own instructional courses were. IN other words, like the students themselves, has there been a full & proper 'understanding' of what the budding 'instructors' have been taught, themselves? Trouble is, to the lay person who undergoes a course as a student, hoping to 'improve' on their basic [driving?] skills, their 'instructor' is the Deee's Beee's.....Simply because the student hasn't the 'background' to actually understand, {or , query, if they don't,} the concepts being 'taught'. It is taken for granted that the ''Instructor'' is the 'knowledgeable'' one...Yet, often, the instructor is simply trying to pass on what they themselves have been 'taught' on their 'instructor' courses. Or, rather, what they themselves understood from what they'd been taught? To me, the most puzzling question I get asked is, ''who taught me?'' IN all honesty, all my driving and riding skills[not so much of that side,I fell off]...were 'learnt' from good old experience, and a sound basic grounding at the start. [Courtesy of London Transport, Chiswick]. Who taught my Instructors? I know not, but everything was explained clearly, as to why, this, or that, were done, or not done. But I absolutely enjoyed driving, and the interactions that were required in order to achieve the objectives. The type of vehicle was always, to me, secondary, I couldn't care less what vehicle it was, I would drive it, successfully and 'safely'.. I Learnt very early one, that it wasn't what others did which was the issue, but, rather, how well I coped with what they did. LT taught me to drive defensively [albeit in a double decker RT]....IE, using things like 'position' to actually look after my own interests.... Sure, I had prangs...but, never ever in all my driving life has anyone ever been able to successfully claim against me, or my employer. I never ever injured anyone riding in or on my vehicle. Doing something one enjoys, day in, day out, and one learns what is important about driving. Important too, to not go through a shift feeling really angry, because of what someone else has done. These things are not often taught. When I took up Instructing [for the MoD] as a Specialist [their description, not mine]...I learnt how to teach....and obviously my own, 'learnt' skills were approved of, not just by the MoD but by the DSA as well... I had a habit of seeing what others did, or said, and would often pinch those ideas....I didn't start out 'knowing it all', but rather picked up or latched onto, the better ideas of others. Understanding the skill of driving on the public highway [and, off it]...meant I could answer any question put to me by a student..without being too pompous about it....but rather, being able to explain, or find a way to explain, that the student understood. Nobody ever 'taught' me to listen and garner information from a de-breif, for example. Nobody 'taught' me to be able to analyse all that a driver did, up to the point of what they deemed the cock-up.... That was all picked up by listening to colleagues [my peers], listening to Examiners [I could have been one]...listening to the Advanced Training Wing instructors around the bacon butty van, all info soaked up, because I was 'interested' So many really, truthfully, weren't! The outcome of it all was seen in my results..my 'stats'. Most other instructors on various courses knew when they had got hold of one of 'my' students..by what they knew & understood..... But, i wasn't the only one [of serval hundred colleagues all doing the same, or similar, jobs] So, who was I taught by??? Bits of paper, courses passed, training undergone, parchments and CVs and all that, to me was, and still is, just so much bullshyte. When I retired, I handed in my FMT 600..all three of them, full of vehicles and relevant courses....some folk couldn;t be bothered , I enjoyed it all I spent the last 20 years of my working life, pretty much, being able to 'play' with stuff. TAught? Or, learnt? There's a huge difference.

I used to ride motorcycles. Not very powerful ones, or very big ones, and no two wheeled armchairs, either. I really belong to the 'power-to-weight' ratio brigade, rather than the BHP brigade. I also find that today, i don't get asked ''wot'llitdo, mistah?' but rather, wotsitworth, mistah?' I once had an 'argument' [conversation in this-century-speak?} with a colleague at work, who was also a Motorcycle instructor of the 'advanced' sort. My point was, when thinking of motorcycles and cars on the road, there really were massive double standards being employed. As an example, he thought it ''OK'' to overtake a car and pull into the space between that car, and the vehicle in front...simple because, his bike was 'smaller' and apparently more nimble. When I pointe dout that he would have entered into the 2 second gap between car and next vehicle, thereby ignoring the Highway Code, his response was [and this includes that of Traffic Police Officers] that the car should then, slow down to increase the gap between bike & car! All well & good, but what about 'overtaking vehicles keeping clear of the vehicle they're overtaking?' Plus, isn't that a prime example of 'bullying' on the road as well? [He couldn't understand that concept]...but if one compels another road user one is supposed to keep clear of, to take a course of dramatic action [failure to give way, for example]..then the overtaker is a bully,. Anyway, if the boot were on the other foot, and I overtook motorcycle and pulled back in front, very close to their front wheel, wouldn't they have something to say about it?? The response was, ''that will never happen, a car overtaking a motorcycle!'' Well, as it happens [and out of sheer badness on my part] I caught up with the lad, on his big motorcycle, whilst he was out, 'following''.....and he wasn't riding very fast at all. I was in my old Daihatsu 4trak at the time.....over 100 bhp per tonne....so I overtook him and pulled between him and the vehicle in front...much flashing of lights and tooting of horn, so I stopped...he came to my window, then realised who I was...my response was, it proved my point...what is meat for the goose, is also meat for the gander, so to speak. I have always believed that, regardless of what a vehicle looks like, or its capabilities...a vehicle, is a vehicle....and how we behave towards other vehicles should be the same, regardless of whether the other vehicle is a 44 tonne artic, or a motorcycle. But we live in a world where one type of vehicle is expected to be given different consideration to another. Quite why, I cannot see! Another example of my point...the [national] speed limit on a single carriageway road, rural in the UK is 60 mph for cars & bikes, but 50 mph for Transit vans, lorries, buses, etc. But, if I toddle down the highway at around 50 mph, in my 'car', I am expected to 'go faster'...whereas if I were driving a Tranny van, that 50 mph would be ''ok''... Which is the nub of my point.... a vehicle, is a vehicle...and if one type of vehicle has a lower speed limit than another, does it matter really? Progress is progress....as was often pointed out on our blue light courses....better some progress,, than none at all. [Our establishment ran EOD vehicle courses....and for many years were the only blue light courses to actually conduct a 'live' blue light run [through Hull, as it happened]....due to being able to call upon a police blue light escort. A quid pro quo with the local constabulary...they got to use our massive training area for their driver training purposes, which normally would cost them......in exchange for the use of a Traffic car every other Friday! Interesting to observe their training for the rolling road blocks, or stopping a drunk driver, etc. They never really got the idea of us driving around at night with absolutely no lights on at all..though....[Neither did one or two cheeky dog walkers!]

I prefer to simply turn all my lights off, in that instance...

The Rolls Royce was in reality a very well built lorry.

Well well well, both Facebook & instant Gram have crashed [outage, or is it outrage?} There will be wailing, & gnashing of teeth nationwide.... Or, has there been a run on facebook that I've missed? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58793174

For the less well-off amongst us, perhaps?

Well, isn't thread-drft marvellous?? We've got central heating, radiators, boilers, curtains, weetabix, bins, tips, re-cycling, you name it....

I have yet to find a home where that isn't the case? Quite why, I know not..but must be something to do with the window wall being the only one long enough to accommodate the size of radiator required?

What's a 'radiator?' If I'm cold, I light a fire. After having put on a number of wooly cardies according to ambient temperature. Room temp adjusted by the use of relevant doors. I have an oil fired boiler, used solely for heating bath water...so the oil lasts a long time [not due a bath for another 7 weeks..saves on bubble bath too] If I need hot water to wash up, I boil a kettle or two, making a cuppa in the process. No gas in the village, aside from that which comes in tall red bottles. Also our village tends to not suffer from total power outages....since the 'supply', being originally farm supplies, comes from two different locations....so generally, only half the village gets a blackout at a time. This has led to consternation on the part of Northern Powergen, who have been busy this summer replacing overheads with underground supplies...but found they could do only half the street, on account of from which direction the homes have received their power originally? Thus, I am now 'underground, as are the next two houses down, then the supplies for the 3rd house down, to the end of the street, are on overheads...they even had to put new stay wires in situ, once they'd removed the overheads from the other side of the pole..then realised...... They spend several days trying to put one cottage's supply underground, only to find their plans thrown awry as, once they' got the wee trench up to the building, that the cottage was built on a solid slab of chalk...and they couldn't go up the wall either, for some reason....much drilling and sawing of rock going on, as the slab is around 3 inches below the surface!! The lads were under the impression first off, that a mini digger and shovels would be all they needed. So, several months on, we are, literally, still, half in, half out, power-wise. Anyway, if there's a power cut, I can always use one of several wee gas camping stoves.....the log fire can be stoked up to melting heat... Oh, and last spring the leccy supplier tried to fit a smart meter, but couldn't get a signal in my meter cupboard...So the fitter immediately gave up and disappeared off to an easier target...Thus far, no efforts made on their part to try other technologies. O how nice to have a low profile lifestyle?

Like riveta, re-cycled cardboard! [As if anyone wondered what happened to all the cardboard boxes one stuffed into one's blue recycling bin?]

That may well be the case [TA no longer exists...they're 'Reservists' now] Seeing as a goodly percentage of military personnel are reservists nowadays.. But...not all of them! Since what one does in civvy street doesn't cross over to the military world, they still have to undergo the relevant training & assessment.

Which is why, when the military conduct tanker driver training, they fill the tanks with water.

Back in the 1980's and 90's, I lived next door to an old retired mechanic [whose 'hobby' was buying & re-building old written-off Fiestas]....who used to work for a Bridlington garage funeral directors local hire car company. [This being during and after WW2, & onwards.} [Boddy's, I think??] Companies like this abounded at the time, and had fingers in many 'transport' pies. Anyway, he was a grand old fella who liked to yarn over a cup o tea in his workshop....I did a lot of 'heavy' lifting for him, on demand, he was in his 80's...... He told me how the firm he worked for bought up a lot of old pre-WW2 Rolls Royces for conversion into hearses or funeral/private hire limos. Apparently, around that time, a lot of RR owners couldn't afford to run their cars, or get spares, their values becoming almost negligible. SO impecunious operators would snap them up for peanuts. This was demonstrated in the old TV drama, ''Darling Buds of May? Anyway, the main problem with them seemed to be the engines, and getting spares for them [plus the cost of the spares?] But old Sid's answer was to buy up crate loads of ex govt. WW2 Ford flathead V8 engines, which came with their gearboxes attached. These could also be bought for peanuts by the dozen, at the time. [Everything in WW2 seemed to be powered by them!] However, pulling the old RR engines meant difficulties simply attaching the Ford engines to the RR gearboxes...so Sid's idea was to insert the Ford flathead V 8 into the RR chassis complete with Ford 3 speed gearboxes, then attach the Ford gearbox output to the RR gearbox input! Problem solved.....for a hearse, no issues with drivng! Apparently some were also converted into what we would nowadays call, minibuses, for school kids... The pre-war Rolls Royces became chuck-away things once worn out.

On the fuel front, I do wonder whether some suppliers might deliberately hold back the cheaper, 95 octane petrol [purporting to be E10...but that means only up to, 10% ethanol]...in order to boost sales of the much more expensive 'super' petrols [max E5]...which round hereabouts, cost upwards of 10 pence a litre more than 95 octane. No...surely not? They wouldn't do a thing like that, would they??

An opportunity to compel the nation to binge out on junket, then?? [ I love junket, especially with a sprinkling of nutmeg]

Ahh, the Siddeley sapphire, a nice car for a biiig family. I was fostered to a family in the early 60's/late 50's, who had a dark green Sapphire....three of their late teenage kids, and me as a 9 year old....plenty of room inside, plus luggage.