Adrian Wintle

The thing with those is that they are not particularly North American. Container-based offices are definitely in the minority here, although available through suppliers like ATCO (which looks to make the prototype for the kit). The typical thing here would be a site-office trailer, basically a big plywood box with siding on the outside. The come in various sizes and are lighter and cheaper than containers. Plus, they can be towed with a pickup truck. http://www.millerofficetrailers.com/ https://www.modspace.com/en-ca/mobile-offices http://www.atcosl.com/en-ca/Products-and-Services/Mobile-Offices/Office-Trailers Adrian

While it is a nice-looking kit, the converted container mobile office really feels out of place for the late '70s. A box (site office) trailer would be more likely, although ISO containers had been around long enough that someone might have done an office conversion. Also, containers in hot conditions get unbearably hot inside. If you keep it, give it a window air conditioner (and an electrical service). Here is a (modern) example of an electrical service on a container: The main components are a metal stack with an elbow at the top (to ensure that the feed line is at a safe height) and a meter. Both buildings would likely have similar setups, i.e. it is more likely to have two service feeds an meters than to have a single one and a cable strung to the other building, Adrian

One of the things I've seen around here is that they lift the points (replacing with straight track), but leave the rest in situ. Presumably the cost of lifting the rest exceeds the salvage value. A couple of the tracks have stranded boxcars (used as storage). Adrian

Since they have limits on how far an aerodynamic device can flex (due to some rather well designed front wings a few years ago) you would have thought that the scrutineers would have had the fin-wings banned by now. Adrian

I still laugh about DRS. Having banned the concept (movable aerodynamic devices) from racing in the '60s, F1 decided that that the should resurrect the it (with silly restrictions) in the hopes that, by giving the following car an advantage, they would get better (although not fairer) racing. I consider it to be as silly as forcing teams to use the wrong tires for part of the race (an idea they stole from Indycar). Adrian

True, but it burns cooler than petrol so you have a chance of noticing before it does serious damage. There is also an awareness of this in the pits, and the crews look out for one another. While there have been the occasional pit fires I can't recall anyone being seriously burned in the time I've been following the various incarnations of North American open-wheel racing (CART, IRL, Indycar...) Adrian

Unless it has changed very recently, NASCAR does allow other work to be done while they are refuelling. The refuelling is safer because it is a gravity fed system and, because the refueller has a dump can of fuel, the amount of fuel that can be spilled is minimized. Indycar makes it safer by using methanol as the fuel - it will still catch fire but it can be extinguished with water. Some forms of sportscar racing (Le Mans etc.) require that the refuelling be completed before any other work (except the driver change) is done. Some also require the engine to be switched off during the pitstop. The biggest difference between refuelling in North American racing and European racing is that North American tracks have an inner pit wall. Only a limited number of people are allowed over the inner pit wall, and only when working on their car. This limits the number of people at risk during pitstops and means that any fire cannot make it to the 'garage' area. The number of people allowed over the wall to work on the car is also limited. In NASCAR it is six (sometimes a seventh is allowed if conditions warrant) plus a NASCAR official - front tire changer, front tire carrier, rear tire changer, rear tire carrier, gasman (refueller), and jackman. Contrast this to the 15? people to change tires in an F1 pitstop (plus all the extraneous people in the pit lane and the extras in the garage which is open to the pit lane). Adrian

I would suggest a mobile home or a standard portable office (construction site trailer) rather than a caravan as that would be much more likely (although a largish Airstream would add a touch of class). If the proprietor lives on site I would suggest both a mobile home and a site trailer as they would want the residence and office to be separate. Something like this for an early mobile home: http://www.hobbylinc.com/city-classics-roberts-road-1950s-mobile-home-kit-ho-scale-model-railroad-building-113 or some later ones: https://www.scalemodelplans.com/smp/pgs/catalog3.html Imex used to do some later ones as fully decorated solid resin castings. and for the office, something like this http://www.1-87vehicles.org/photo289/diorama_construction_site_office_trailer.php This example is bigger and more modern than you would need, but similar things have been around for many years and are characterized by a flat roof, basic rectangular structure, cheap construction (siding over plywood) and, for semi-permanent use, skirting. Airstream trailer http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Busch-HO-44982-1958-Airstream-Camping-Trailer-p/bus-44982.htm In any case, a semi-permanent trailer setup would likely be on blocks/jackstands to unload the suspension/tyres and, if it didn't have full skirting, would have plywood sheets to protect the tyres from the sun. Can't help with the crane, though. Adrian

In a parking lot with rows of bays that face one another, or where the bays do not abut a pavement, driving in forwards makes it much easier to load bulky purchases into the car. Adrian

It is hard to tell since they don't bother to specify what tyres are on those wheels (width or diameter), but I'm guessing that most of the range difference will be due to the 17" wheels being wider, and therefore heavier. Note that the difference between the 15" and the 16" is insignificant. Adrian

They don't increase fuel consumption. While they do have a larger contact patch, the lower profile means that the sidewall is shorter, making it stiffer. This in turn means that less energy being wasted absorbing the drag generated by the flexing of the tyre, which can more than make up for the larger contact patch. The tyre pressure is not lower that an equivalent, but taller, tyre. Racing cars (but not either of your examples*) do use very low profile tyres for exactly that reason - lower drag for the same contact patch and better control and roadholding by taking up the majority of the imperfections in the road surface with the suspension (which is easier to tune) rather than the flex of the tyre. The downside of extremely low profile tyres is a harsher ride, but the manufacturers have tended not to be particularly extreme on mainstream vehicles. 'Eco' tyres are intended to reduce the rolling resistance by being very narrow (to reduce the contact patch) and by being made of harder compounds to reduce the 'squirm' of the tread blocks (a source of drag). Both of these factors mean that the ultimate level of grip is decreased, so a car with 'Eco' tyres will lose traction more easily than the equivalent car with normal tyres. *Formula 1 uses quite high profile tyres compared to most race series, mostly for historical reasons, while NASCAR uses high profile cross-ply tyres (i.e. not radials), also for historical reasons. Adrian

My current Subaru speedometer is almost dead on the satnav speed with the stock tyres. With the winter tyres on it is less than 1% high (225/55-17 vs. 225/60R16). Adrian

There is truth in both points. Manufacturers have gone through the exercise of making each generation of a car bigger than the previous to retain customers (upsizing into the next generation*), but there have been other driving factors including crashworthiness and required equipment. Cars now have multiple airbags (regulatory requirement), heavier structure, particularly in the doors (regulatory requirement), reversing cameras (regulatory requirement, at least over here), larger wheels (diameter and width) with lower profile tires (fuel economy, driven by regulatory requirements), etc... All this adds weight and size. *a great example is the Honda Civic. Adrian

I track my mileage between fillups (brim the tank each time) and I find the best results are when I'm travelling in the US. I'm usually on cruise control on relatively empty Interstates at 65-75 mph (depending on the state and the prevailing speed limit). Here are the best runs: My current 2016 Subaru Crosstrek (XV) with a 2.0 normally aspirated petrol motor - 38.3 mpg (imperial gallons, not the undersized US ones) My previous 2010 Subaru Impreza sedan with a 2.5 normally aspirated petrol motor - 40.0 mpg (less drag than the Crosstrek) Lifetime (200900 miles) - 33.7 mpg The 2002 Subaru Impreza wagon with a 2.5 normally aspirated petrol motor - 39.1 mpg I don't have the lifetime figures but it was probably similar to the 2010 over its 205000 miles. I don't have the records for the 1999 Subaru Impreza sedan with a 2.2 normally aspirated petrol motor, but its best was at least 39 mpg (for a more draggy car than the others), going over 500 miles on less than 60 litres of petrol. The mpg displays on the 2010 and the 2016 are/were quite optimistic. Adrian

NorthWest Short Line (NWSL) in the US makes a variety of parts for creating bespoke drivelines. http://www.nwsl.com/ Particularly: http://shop.osorail.com/category.sc?categoryId=42 Adrian

Here is an early morning snap at LCY (London City airport) of NA (G-EUNA) whilst I was doing the daily and etops (Extended-range Twin-Engine Operational Performance Standards*) transit check prior to release to SNN (Shannon airport) and onward to JFK (John F Kennedy airport - New York) *these are the standards that allow twin-engine aircraft to do long overwater flights Adrian

One of my favourite aircraft, shot at the Toronto CNE airshow sometime in the '80s. These are scanned from prints (sometime I have to get around to scanning the negatives). Unfortunately the close passes were shot up-sun, and the circuit was wide enough that the aircraft was well out over the lake so the third photo had to be blown up excessively, but it does show the planform. Adrian

In answer to the goods shed question, here is a (somewhat decrepit) freight shed. This is on the former Picton, Ontario branch (rails lifted in the '80s) at Consecon. Adrian

The formation for the 1:40 am Paddington to Penzance (1937) is quite interesting (gangwayed coaches unless indicated): To North Road Third 70' double-ended slip (no gangways) To Penzance Brake Van (Toplight, Collett*, or ganwayed Dean) Compo Third Van Third (van trailing) To Kingswear Siphon G To Taunton 70' News Brake Van Dining Car (presumably a positioning move) *not a K40 as these were specifically called out as 60x9 Brake Vans Adrian

It could stand in for the 70' slip that was conveyed to Plymouth as a regular coach and then slipped at Reading on the way back. Adrian

Here are a few from the CFB Trenton airshow in 1986 CF-18A Hornet Flightline, including two F-4Ds, a CF-5A, an F-14A, and a Chinook. F-14A Tomcat AV-8B Harrier A-10A with Snowbirds CL-41s in the background BUFF (B-52G or H) Victor tanker Display line with Victor, C-141 Starlifter, E-3A, B-52 Adrian

Here are a bunch of photos I took at the then recently renamed Lester B. Pearson International Airport (Toronto) in 1984. A lot of long-gone airlines, liveries, and aircraft. Air Canada (727) and CPAir (DC-10) tails with Nordair and United 737s. American DC-10 Martinair DC-10 and an anonymous 707 in the background Eastern 727 Air Ontario Convair 580? Torontair Beech 99 CPAir DC-10 Wardair 747 American 727 Quebecair Fokker F28 BAC 1-11 Air Canada L-1011 Adrian

The list of available slip coaches from September 1937 is as follows: Single-ended with a gangway at the other end: 6962-6964 F23 (61' Collett) 7101-7102 F14 (57' Toplight) Single-ended with no gangway 7237 F7 (58' Clerestory) Double-ended 70' 7685-7699 F13 (Concertina) 7990-7993 F21 (Toplight) Double-ended 7087-7088 F10 (58' Clerestory) 7094 F10 (58' Clerestory) 7096-7100 F10 (58' Clerestory) 7103-7109 F15 (Toplight) 7994-8000 F15 (Toplight) Adrian

As far as I know there were no slip workings west of Exeter. Certainly there were none in the 1937/1938 coach workings. The listed workings were: Down trains, all originate at Paddington 8.55 am, coach slipped at Stoke Gifford** 9.10 am, coaches slipped at Banbury and Leamington 10.30 am, coaches slipped at Heywood Road Junction and Taunton (double-ended slip and F23 respectively) 11.15 am, coach slipped at Didcot*** 2.10 pm, coach slipped at Banbury 4.5 pm, coach slipped at Bicester 5.15 pm, coach slipped at Taplow 6.10 pm, coaches slipped at Bicester and Banbury 7.10 pm, coach slipped at Princes Risborough 7.40 pm, coach slipped at Taplow 7.55 pm, coach slipped at Stoke Gifford* Up trains 7.10 am Weston, coach slipped at Didcot* 8.52 am Oxford, coach slipped at Reading 6.50 am Weymouth, coach slipped at Reading (Mon, Thurs, Sat) (this is the double-ended coach off the Riviera) 8.35 am Plymouth, coaches slipped at Westbury* and Reading (Reading slip is a double-ended 70' coach conveyed to Plymouth as a regular coach) 8.21 am Frome, coach slipped at Reading (Tues, Wed, Fri) (this is the double-ended coach off the Riviera) 11.45 am Malvern Wells, coach slipped at Reading*** 4.35 pm Weston, coaches slipped at Swindon and Reading** (Swindon slip is a double-ended 70' coach that returns to Weston via Bristol as a regular coach) Notes: The slip from the Riviera at Taunton was an F23 (6962, 6963, or 6964), carried onward to Ilfracombe and returned to Paddington the next day. * this is a double-ended 70' slip coach, two of them used to make this (two day) circuit ** this is a double-ended 70' slip making the circuit in a single day *** this is a double-ended 70' slip making the circuit in a single day The other coach types are not explicitly called out in the slip coach workings, but more information may be gleaned from the individual train workings. Note that the F24s were built in 1938 and so wouldn't have been in any of these workings as originally scheduled. Adrian

In the 1938 workings it is shown as a slip coach plus a third (only the slip coach on Mondays) slipped from the 7.10pm Paddington to Shrewsbury. The presence of the third suggests a single-ended slip with a gangway at the other end, but based on the list of slip coaches and other slip workings there were only two coaches that were available and met those criteria, 7101 or 7102 (Dia F14). There were significantly more double-ended slip coaches available. The working does not show a non-gangwayed indicator, so it was not diagrammed specifically for a double-ended slip. I would suggest an F14 (single ended) or an F15 (double ended), but it could just as likely have been an F10, F7, F11, F12, or F22 *(all clerestory diagrams, F10 is double-ended, the others single-ended and non-gangwayed) as they were mostly still in service at the time. They were unlikely to be either of the 70' diagrams (F13 or F21) or F23 (built 1929 for the Riviera). F24s were built in 1938. *Edit: see my post below for coaches available in Sept 1937. Adrian