ejstubbs

Spoiled child syndrome: obviously Nanny never told him "I want doesn't get". I rather got the impression from the Red Bull "he never said that, to anyone...in fact he never said anything to anyone, er, ever..." comment that Horner had defaulted into whinge mode as usual and the team was having to sit on him as discretely as possible (for which read: having to lie about it, apparently). IMO one of the best things that could happen for F1 at the moment - and even for Red Bull* - would be for Horner to go completely rogue and "off-message" and be given the boot (preferably literally). * Though his attitude does seem to chime somewhat with the team's owner, who also seems to be a bit of a posterior orifice - at least going by his company's typical marketing style and its rather toxic affinity with so-called "extreme sports".

Well, it's one way to enforce track limits...

The time is immaterial, and the speed limit was exceeded. Speeding is strict liability offence: the reason why the accused committed the alleged offence, or even their awareness as to whether or not they were committing an offence, is immaterial to the fact of it having been committed. The only valid defence in such cases (barring arguments based on procedural errors) is to prove that the evidence of fact is flawed. As has been pointed out more than once: if the person in receipt of the NIP believes that they have valid mitigating circumstances (rather than an actual defence against the alleged fact) then a process exists whereby that mitigation can be tested before a magistrate. Most likely the result, if the mitigation is accepted, would be to adjust the penalty rather than expunging the offence altogether, given that strict liability applies. If the accused has any sense they'll consult a solicitor, who can advise on the wisdom or otherwise of taking that route - which advice may well also take into account the accused's other circumstances e.g. likelihood of being banned from driving under the totting up rules. However, this is heading way, way so I'll leave it there.

Resurrecting this thread rather starting a new one, with a question for Andy: would I be right in thinking that one result of running the site in basic mode is that the plugin that provided the 'ignore topic' function is currently not active? I ask because I'm definitely seeing topics in VNC that I had previously 'ignored', and the function no longer seems to be available on newer topics that I would prefer not to be distracted by.

AIUI the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) has to be delivered within 14 days. Or at least, it has to be posted within a period of time after the offence which would reasonably be expected to mean that it would arrive within 14 days; they don't use any kind of expedited or recorded delivery, it's just normal first class post. So, for example, if the NIP is posted through your door within 14 days of the offence but you happen to be on holiday at the time, that doesn't invalidate the NIP. And as you say, the appeal process on receipt of a NIP is to opt to have the case heard in court, which is where you have the opportunity to present your mitigation if that's the approach you wish to take. However, it's best to be pretty sure of your defence because if you lose, it can result in a higher fine/more points.

The power station is the other side of the A85 from the railway, pretty much right next to Falls of Cruachan station, on the shore of Loch Awe. It's actually a pumped-storage hydroelectric power station, using water which is pumped nearly 400m up to the Cruachan Reservoir in the corrie below Ben Cruachan (imaginatively name Choire Cruachan) during periods of low electricity demand. As such, it's one of only four pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations currently operating in the UK (the others being Foyers above Loch Ness, and Dinorwig and Ffestiniog in Wales).

Pity there isn't an "ignore" function for Horner... (Actually, this applies to quite a number of people IRL.)

"Van life" has become very trendy this past year or so. I think it may have something to do with people having become used to taking their holidays closer to home during the various pandemic restrictions, and a related inclination to save money on the accommodation as well as the travel. In terms of popularity it seems to be taking over from purpose-built camper vans, although AIUI the rules about DIY van conversions have been tightened up somewhat recently.

There's an explanation for the rise in electricity standing charges in The Guardian money section this weekend: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/mar/06/why-is-my-standing-charge-up-by-80-energy-firms-pile-on-the-agony After a lot of waffle to begin with, it eventually cuts to what appears to be the meat of the matter:

And as Alan Wright used for the shunting puzzle built in to the second, 1966, version of his "The Wright Lines" layout, which was the early genesis of his Inglenook Sidings idea. In his article about the layout in the September 1967 edition of RM he even writes about his use of the "tiddlywink computer" to determine the consist of the train to be assembled. Note however: 1) According to that article, there was a limit of shunt sign beside the level crossing. That seems like an unusual error for someone who, in the article about his earlier 1956 layout using the same track plan, wrote about "a small line upon which suitable locos and rolling stock can be operated in a true-to-type manner". 2) "The Wright Lines" Mk2 had two sidings, one 4 wagons long (or 3 if one was a long wheelbase wagon), and one 2 wagons long. He doesn't mention any particular limit on the number of wagons that can be on the main line at any one time, although the target for the puzzle is assemble a four-wagon train from the eight on the layout. This makes it rather different from the rules for his 1979 layout "Inglenook Sidings", and which are generally regarded as the 'standard' rules for Inglenook-type layouts.

Only for speeding offences AFAIK: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/speeding-fines/ And only if it goes to court; if you get and accept an FPN, it's a fixed amount. For use of a handheld mobile phone while driving it's a £200 FPN and 6 points: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/mobile-phone-laws/ In theory, of course, accumulating 12 points on your licence means you can't drive - which is pretty much the same as having your car taken away. In practice, an awful lot of offenders seem to be let off a ban by claiming the "exceptional hardship" excuse. There is a view that people who would face exceptional hardship if they lost their licence should have taken that into account before choosing to commit an offence. I'm sure I read somewhere recently that the qualifying criteria for this were being tightened up but I can't find any online references just now. There are also some people who just ignore the ban; not infrequently such charming individuals get picked up by committing further offences while banned. As the saying goes: You can't stop stupidity; you can't legislate against it but you can hold people accountable for it.

Poor fellow - that's one of those names that's always going to raise a laugh somewhere. "He was here a minute ago, now he's wandered off. Have you seen Mike Krack?" (sniggers)

Doctor Who was notorious for using quarries as 'alien planet' locations. This web site lists thirty quarries amongst the known locations used - some of which are no longer quarries e.g. Bluewater which used to go by the name of Western Quarry. If you know the area it should be possible to track down the series/episodes that a particular quarry appeared in using the "search by address" tool on that web site. EDIT TO ADD: In fact it was easier than that. I just put "Redhill" into the location search and out popped Beachfields Quarry (maybe where the Redhill Brick & Sand company got its sand from?) According to that web site it was used in three separate Who stories: Frontier in Space and Planet of the Daleks from the Jon Pertwee era, both broadcast in 1973 and featuring Katy Manning as the the Doctor's assistant Jo Grant, and The Invasion of Time from the Tom Baker era, broadcast in 1978 and featuring Louise Jameson as Leela (at which point I feel the need to go and sit quietly in a darkened room for a bit to calm down...)

I'm afraid that when I'm using my digital camera in manual mode I still think in terms of the controls on my last 35mm SLR, a Pentax Super-A. That said, even on 35mm SLRs, the control options were starting to extend way beyond straightforward focus/aperture/shutter speed by that time, though not within my price range (apart from the various forms of auto exposure, and a handful of TTL metering modes). I actually bought two Super-As, but only because the first one was stolen not long after I bought it, when my flat was burgled. I ended up selling it after a few years, having lost interest in fiddling with cameras and wanting to go back to simple point-and-shoot. Nowadays you can basically have the best of both worlds. I note that most digital compacts still display the lens "focal length" on the zoom display in terms of the equivalent in 35mm.

It's not a "new law" as in a specific offence under statute, it's one of the updates to the Highway Code that came into force on 29th January this year. Specifically, it's an update to rule 126 of the Highway Code. The change is documented here, relevant extract below: As it says, if charged the offence would still be the generic Careless or Dangerous Driving (i.e. one of the CDxx endorsement codes, or DD40). AIUI tailgating cameras have been in use in Germany for some years. They work by taking both a still image and a video clip, so that the circumstances leading up to the still image can be assessed. It sounds as if the system that has already been trialled on the M1 works in a similar way. From https://www.petrolprices.com/news/new-cameras-catch-tailgaters-on-m1/: Of interest are the figures gathered during the 12-month trial of tailgating cameras on the M1 here: I suspect that the repeat offenders (easily identified automatically using NPR) will be the ones receiving the most scrutiny. I assume that, as with speeding offences, one would have the option to take the case to court, in which case dashcam footage would likely be useful evidence in ones favour. People said that about a lot of the other changes in the Highway Code this year, especially the new "hierarchy of road users". It hasn't happened. When the underlying circumstances (laws or guidance) change, people are generally capable of adapting their behaviours accordingly by the application of intelligence or common sense. And, despite appearances to the contrary, most drivers generally aren't homicidal, suicidal or pathological maniacs who drive with zero consideration of the consequences of their, or other drivers', actions. That said, in my experience "people" jostle for lane position, speed up and slow down randomly, brake unnecessarily and change lanes without adequate warning on a fairly regular basis anyway. It's annoying and frustrating when it happens, but it doesn't actually lead to genuine chaos all that often.

Have a look at https://modelfixings.co.uk. I use them regularly for small screws, nuts and bolts for, er, models.

With the rule changes, it'll be a significantly different car to the one he last raced for them. In any case, he seems quite comfortable in IndyCar these days; he's contracted to Andretti for 2022.

I think I might have bought that bulk film film loader with 100ft of FP4. I took my Zenit E, along with six cassettes of bulk-loaded 35mm FP4, on a "schools abroad" trip to Russia in 1976 (and developed it all myself after I got back home, in the middle of the drought summer, following the advice in Amateur Photographer about how to save water when using a developing tank - before that I'd just let the tap run through it for half an hour for the final rinse). Well, I say Russia: it was the USSR, mostly actually Ukraine (Odessa & Kiev). Forty plus years on and there's a war breaking out there as we speak. What did we achieve in the intervening years? We thought the fall of the Berlin wall was the point when it all started to go right...

I get my films processed through the same place I buy them: my handy local vintage/used camera shop. It might be a bit cheaper to use one of the online processors but I enjoy popping in to the shop for a browse and a natter. They also refurbished my Dad's Yashica Minister camera which I inherited when he died (at a cost which I thought was very reasonable, but SWMBO thought was extortionate for "a knackered old camera"). My first camera was a Kodak Brownie 127. My first "proper" camera was a Zenit E, and I've still got one of the later versions (a Zenit 12e) as part of my ageing 35mm camera 'stable'. One advantage of the Zenit is that it's fairly handy as self-defence weapon (a bit like the jar of Pond's cold cream in the handbag that certain ladies of my acquaintance used to swear by) as well as taking not-too-bad photos...

Certainly didn't work very well for Lotus in 1971: https://www.racefans.net/2007/03/08/banned-gas-turbine-engines/ The article doesn't mention precessionary forces as one of the downsides. Given that it says that the gas turbine engine was lighter than a normal F1 power plant of the time, maybe the mass wasn't there to cause much of a problem? The Pratt & Whitney PT6 of which a variant was used in the Lotus 56 and 56B was a small turboprop aero engine which Wiki says weighs about 270lb (which I think is for the whole engine including the gearbox which provides the shaft output) vs ~370lb for a Cosworth DFV (cf up to 555lb for the BRM H16!) Since this is RMWeb I should add that a variant of the engine de-rated to 300bhp was used in the UAC TurboTrain. * Er, yeah, been there, done that once in the university engineering lab. Long story, but we were within seconds of departing the rather 'compact' gas turbine lab via the emergency exit before the thing finally started to spool down and the exhaust temperature began heading back towards "no it's not going to set the whole place on fire" levels. Luckily the lab supervisor never found out as I doubt he'd have let us across his threshold again if he had...

I agree. But Sam Thomas was originally talking about Roco-Roco being problematic, and so proposed using Roco-Hornby.: You then replied to him suggesting that that would make the problem worse: So I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to point out that Roco-Roco would be worse, because (a) that was exactly what was (or should have been) clear from my post, and (b) that wasn't what Sam Thomas had originally proposed as a solution to the problem (which was exactly that Roco-Roco is often too tight). I suspect some misunderstanding or loss of context has occurred somewhere between Sam Thomas' first post and mine - possibly even by me. I agree that Hunt couplings seem to be a better solution all round for close coupling within a rake: better spacing, with more choice as to the length of the couplings, and easier to couple up and uncouple when assembling and re-organising a rake by hand. No good for auto-uncoupling, obviously, so something more suitable needs to be used at each end of the rake if that functionality is required.

Sure it's it's not MDCCCL, which would be 1850?

The Hornby R8220 close coupler is about 2.5mm longer then the Roco 40271. So no.

Gravity shunting to run the loco round passenger trains was also used at Killin, mentioned here: https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/K/Killin_2nd/

The "Borders Gateway project" ( it's an industrial estate with a LIDL and a Costa Coffee for heaven's sake) is on the other side of Tweedbank Drive from the railway: Nonetheless, the groundworks that 56038 spotted might indeed be related.