Jump to content
Users will currently see a stripped down version of the site until an advertising issue is fixed. If you are seeing any suspect adverts please go to the bottom of the page and click on Themes and select IPS Default. ×


RMweb Premium
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    BR up to 1968

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

cctransuk's Achievements



  1. Humour permeates RMweb, fortunately; though it seems to be singularly absent within this 'Parish Council'. I shouldn't be surprised though - past professional experience has taught me that Councils in general take themselves far too seriously. CJI.
  2. Then it'll be counter-productive; I'm blocking their deluge of emails! CJI.
  3. .... but frequently used in jest on RMweb - is there a ban on humour here? CJI.
  4. I cannot prevent the Notifications which appear when thread members continue to berate and insult me - and I am not the type to take abuse lying down. I did ask "Might that be the end of the matter"? It would appear not! CJI.
  5. Lets hope they pipe down, then! CJI.
  6. Having been rudely rebuffed when making a valid point, relevant to the content of the thread, I felt justified in standing my ground. Other thread- dwellers responded in kind, and the animosity took on a life of its own. Frankly, I have become bored with the fruitless back and forth, and so have clicked the IGNORE button. Might that be the end of the matter? CJI.
  7. Definitely - and the never-ending 'ENDS TOMORROW' sale, which is contantly extended, is starting to make me wonder if this is the desperation that comes with financial ills. CJI.
  8. A - possibly Ian Kirk or Westykit C - probably Parkside PO grain wagon. D - possibly Peco Wonderful Wagon PO cement van (overpainted) CJI.
  9. Perhaps if 'Nearhomer' had not felt constrained to dismiss my honestly held views on labour 'shortages' so rudely, I might not have felt obliged to continue the debate - and have used the IGNORE button earlier. CJI.
  10. If that was aimed at me, I fail to follow you. Please elucidate. CJI.
  11. Very eloquent - but, as I said, I'll just sit here and listen. I had plenty of practice at that - sitting in Council meetings as the reporting Officer; only intervening when one (or more) of the Members made a patently inaccurate statement. CJI.
  12. Possibly - but I'm afraid all 650kg. of the collection went to the local recycling centre a week ago! Sorry, John Isherwood.
  13. Right - let's be clear - the K's kit represents a BR 24.5T mineral hopper - as such, my Sheet BL66 is not appropriate; what is needed is BL156. When I came to build my K's kit, I found that the components differed from photos of the real wagon, insomuch as the disposition of the side slopes resembled the 21T hopper, whereas the real 24.5T wagon had differently configured side slopes. Following some research - almost certainly in David Larkin's wagon data sheets, I learned that the first few 24.5T hoppers had side slopes disposed in the same way as the 21T wagon, but subsequent production had a different arrangement of side slopes. Checking the content of my transfer sheet, I find that 24.5T hoppers B330000, B330001 & B330002 are included. It would be unusual for me to include three consecutive numbers unless the prototypes displayed some special feature. I therefore conclude, without repeating the research, that these first three wagons were the initial batch, and that subsequent production was to the revised body arrangements. I hope that this information answers your query, but do get back to me if not. John Isherwood.
  14. Certainly not - my speciality is civil engineering. I merely 'saw' the Dunning-Kruger effect as was recommended and found, not unexpectedly in that field, diverse opinions and research conclusions as to its existence or otherwise. CJI.
  • Create New...