ejstubbs

16 hours ago, NIK said:

Some filming for Doctor Who was done not too far from above location shown in the pictures in what the actress playing the Doctor's assistant at the time described as a quarry.

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...)

14 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

At least in film days, cameras were relatively easy to 'learn'. With only so many parameters to set, and variables that all made sense in terms of photographic theory, wasted shots could thankfully be few. Now the cost per shot is basically nil, but having exactly the optimum focus option set for capturing this or that subject is another matter. For most non-professionals the typical medium- to high-end camera these days is endowed with far more capabilities than will be used. Then there's video....

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.

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

Given that a new law is to be introduced regarding tailgating and the 2 second rule, what is anyones view on this?

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:

Quote

 

Amended Text to Highway Code Rule 126

(new, additional or amended text to the Rule has been italicised in bold)

 

The Highway Code Rule 126

 

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you

can see to be clear. You should

• leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown above)
• allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on high-speed roads and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and up to ten times greater on icy roads
• remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front.

If you have to stop in a tunnel, leave at least a 5-metre gap between you and the vehicle in front.

 

Tailgating is where the gap between you and the vehicle in front is too small for you to be able to stop safely if the vehicle in front suddenly brakes.

 

Tailgating is dangerous, intimidating and can cause collisions, especially when driving at speed. Keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front gives you time to react and stop if necessary. Dangerous and careless driving offences, such as tailgating, are enforced by the police.

 

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).

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

It can't be enforced by still cameras, as if someone has invaded your space you might be throttling back to allow the gap to increase at the time of the photo'

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/:

Quote

 

The new cameras, developed by Aecom, were installed along a 150 metre stretch of the M1 and operate in a very similar way to speed cameras. They identify and record number plate details that can then be used to issue warnings to offending drivers. In this case, the warning will be in the form of a letter.

 

The new technology also allows for readings of drivers’ distance-keeping to be recorded to determine whether the tailgating is accidental or deliberate. Only in the case of deliberate tailgating will warnings be issued.

 

Of interest are the figures gathered during the 12-month trial of tailgating cameras on the M1 here:

Quote

National Highways has now released the figures from the trial when there were:

• 60,343 detections
• 10,994 repeat offenders
• 2,144 letters sent to drivers warning they had driven too close and highlighting the dangers of not leaving safe braking distances

Drivers caught in the trial were not prosecuted but advised they had been tailgating and given educational material demonstrating the dangers of driving too close.

 

National Highways will use the results of the trial to inform future work on tailgating.

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.

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

...chaos will ensue, and therefore more chance of accidents, as people jostle for lane position speeding up, slowing down or taking avoiding action.

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.

19 hours ago, Andrew P said:

Or how about Roman Grosjean back, he knows the Car, the Team and they know him.

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...

On 23/02/2022 at 17:17, tigerburnie said:

I see you can buy brand new film these days rather than old out of date stuff, but who does the developing these days?

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...

23 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I doubt jet engines would actually be much help on an F1 car.

Certainly didn't work very well for Lotus in 1971: https://www.racefans.net/2007/03/08/banned-gas-turbine-engines/

Quote

 

The turbine car had many shortcomings. Lag in power delivery was massive – although Pratt & Whitney’s technicians managed to halve the delay using lighter components it was still up to three seconds.

The phenomenon also occurred in reverse – when a driver backed off the throttle the engine still delivered maximum power*, meaning it had to be manhandled to a halt (it had no gearbox) using enormous brakes that wore out quickly.

 

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...

14 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Hornby to Hornby is just too short for ease of coupling on Bachmann MK1s…. Introducing the shorter Roco in to the mix exacerbates the problem.

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?

8 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

Roco to Hornby would be shorter and exacerbate the issue would it not? 

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.

19 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

The average mileage at scrappage for an ICE powered car, has improved from around 106,000 miles 20 years ago, to around 120,000 miles today, although the much improved build quality and engineering of modern cars means that with correct maintenance and care of the vehicle, a modern ICE powered car should last for between 150,000 and 200,000 miles.

Volvo used a figure of 124,000 miles for their rather interesting comparison between the all-electric, petrol and hybrid versions of the XC40: https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/petrol-or-electric-which-is-actually-greenest.  What's both interesting and useful (IMO) is the analysis of the break-even point between ICE and EV based on how the EV's electricity is generated:

Quote

Volvo has published three different figures, according to average global electricity supply, the projected ‘EU28’ (the EU, plus the UK) balance of regular and renewable sources and fully renewable energy. Over that 124,000-mile lifespan the fully electric C40’s carbon footprint is 15 per cent less than that of a petrol XC40 and the car needs to have covered 68,300 miles before the break-even point. By the EU28 measure that improves to nearly 30 per cent and 48,000 miles, while if you can charge your C40 purely on renewable energy its lifetime CO2 footprint is half that of the ICE XC40 and break-even comes at just over 30,000 miles.

Of course no-one is claiming that these figures are 100% correct, immutable and unarguable, but I've not seen before such a straightforward like-for-like ballpark comparison that takes into account the source of the electricity used for motive power as well as the energy involved in the vehicle's manufacture.

19 hours ago, Reorte said:

JET was designed as an experiment (the E is "experimental")

Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus  The "European" bit is because it's a Euratom project.  The UK Is still an associate member of Euratom (as is Switzerland) despite no longer being an EU member state.  JET itself resides in Culham, Oxfordshire.

It's the "E" in ITER that stands for "Experimental": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER.  The membership of that project goes far beyond the EU and its associated states.

3 hours ago, Hobby said:

One major advantage with built in satnavs is that they tend to be in a place that doesn't obscure the view of the driver

Using Google Maps via Android Auto (or the Apple equivalent, depending on your preference of phone manufacturer) puts the display on the AV head unit, same as built-in satnav.  In the charity's van that I drive I ignore the built-in satnav; Google Maps via Android Auto uses exactly the same built-in dashboard display.  In both the van and in my car, my phone travels flat on the top of the dashboard, tucked right forward under the windscreen edge, with the screen facing down.  That means that it doesn't obstruct the windscreen, and it's effectively invisible to me from my driving position, but it does get good GPS reception.

Anything that obscures the view of the driver through the windscreen is basically illegal.  (I once found myself waiting in a queue behind a character who had a 10" tablet in portrait orientation sat plumb upright on top of their dashboard, smack bang in front of them   It was clearly visible on the footage from my dashcam when I checked later.)

I find DNS66 (available from F-droid) is pretty good at blocking ads on Android devices.  It's what I use, anyway, rather than adblocking browsers, which IME mean that ads still get through in apps.  Better still, it's not detected as an adblocker so you don't get whiny "please disable your adblocker" pop-ups either.

I use Google Maps navigation on my phone.  No subscription and always up to date (and you can submit corrections if you find something seriously amiss).  I use it in my car, and in the van I drive for my volunteer work*, via Android Auto - it'll connect to the head unit of any vehicle with Android Auto, and if the vehicle doesn't have that you can just use it standalone with the voice guidance (which is pretty good IMO, providing clear instructions without being annoyingly chatty) either coming from the phone itself or via bluetooth to the car's audio system.  It monitors traffic and re-routes you if there's an obvious holdup somewhere on the route it originally chose.  It's very swift to re-route if I miss a turn or choose to take a detour.  It has never yet taken me down a closed road or a farm track.

In my view, built-in satnav for private cars is a technology whose time in the mass market has passed.  For HGVs and other "special needs" vehicles it probably still has its place (though how many users of said vehicles actually cough up for the additional functionality they need is perhaps questionable).

* IMO it's much better than the built-in satnav in the charity's van which I find overly chatty and often confusing.

1 hour ago, RedgateModels said:

think there is an age thing to factor in your sweeping statement  my 2002 scooby doesn’t

My 1999 Impreza didn't either.

17 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Leave a window open so it offers less resistance to closing

Shouldn't be necessary: the Yeti has one-way air vents somewhere around the boot area for precisely this reason.  I suspect other VAG cars have something similar.  (Of course, if the one-way flap gets jammed in the closed position it might not work so well...)

19 hours ago, MartynJPearson said:

I think it is down the slammer. I have an Octavia and my "touch of an elephant" nearly teenage daughter can close the boot with such force that my ears feel the pressure difference

Agree, and my wife is the same.   I cringe every time I drop her off somewhere because I know that the front passenger door is going to be slammed shut with all the delicacy of a bull in a china shop.  (I think it may be because she drove a Renault Clio for a long time and towards the end of its life the doors did need a bit of heft behind them to close first time.)

5 hours ago, Hroth said:

As was once said on Top Gear, Skoda's are bought by people who want a VW but don't want to pay VW prices!

Would that have been the Top Gear episode in which they landed a helicopter on the roof of a Yeti?  The one in which, after the road test segment, Clarkson said: "Hand on heart, tell me that you have seen a more complete car than this, because I haven't."  (To which James May retorted: "All right.  Sell your AMG Mercedes and buy one.")

Tell you what, though:  having recently endured the rear passenger seat of a VW Passat for three hours (long story), I definitely wouldn't want to pay VW prices for that.

10 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

I don't know how widely the tumult around Flores is being reported in the UK.

The story made it in to the Gruaniad, which seems to have a not insignificant US Online readership, and has a US Sports section online and in its app:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/01/brian-flores-sues-nfl-dolphins-broncos-giants-racism-black-head-coaches

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/03/flores-reminded-us-the-nfl-values-black-players-for-our-bodies-not-our-minds

37 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think it’s been published in a single volume, then an enlarged version in two volumes

British Railway Carriages of the Twentieth Century Volume 1 The End of an Era, 1901-22 was published in 1988

British Railway Carriages of the Twentieth Century Volume 2 The Years of Consolidation, 1923-53 was published in 1990

The History of British Railway Carriages, 1900-53 was published in 1996

Also available from eBay, Abebooks*, independent bookshops** etc etc.

* Owned by Amazon

** Who very often list on Abebooks

<Deleted double post caused by site response time issues>

21 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

If you set tracking protection to Strict in your browser you won't see any adverts

That rather depends on which browser you're using, doesn't it?  On my desktop machine, only Firefox of the three browsers I have installed has such a setting, and it's the browser I use least frequently.  (And, as it happens, the Adblock Plus Firefox extension blocks the pop-up videos regardless of the tracking settings.)

On 29/01/2022 at 21:56, dugdug03 said:

Also is it better to remove the point springs?

Absolutely not, if you are using solenoid point motors, because when unpowered (i.e. when not actually being 'fired' to throw the point) there's nothing to keep the solenoid in the position it's been 'fired' to.  You can actually push the solenoid armature - or in the case of the PL-11, the point actuating rod connected to the solenoid armature by a bell crank type mechanism - back and forth with minimal finger pressure.  The point springs are therefore required to hold the point blades in the selected position.