ejstubbs

No mayo for me, thanks. Oh, I see. Sorry.

I think it dates to around the time that faux-by-fours (typically using technology like Haldex, rather than "proper" 4WD with transfer cases, centre diffs etc) started to become more affordable and thus more popular - and then people discovered that their designer "4x4" SUV with super-low-profile tyres that they fondly imagined would be able to take them absolutely anywhere...couldn't cope with a hard frost on a steep hill. My recollection is that it was around the time of the heavy snow in late 2010 that the insurance companies started to get stick for trying to charge people extra if they wanted to fit winter tyres, and the ABI weighed in to knock heads together. Basically: a combination of a shift in the car market, consumer fashion and a meteorological lesson - subsequently fuelled by consumer awareness. (One could find it a little ironic that, in roughly the same timeframe that increasing numbers of people were choosing to fit winter tyres in order to be safer in cold weather, increasing numbers of people - and sometimes the same people - were blithely getting in to the habit of playing with their smartphones while behind the wheel...)

All winter models have "M+S" marking, but not all tyres with "M+S" are winter tyres. Is a tyre with "M+S" marking suitable for all conditions? The answer is: not necessarily. So, what does the "M+S" marking mean? "Mud + Snow"- is only a declaration from the manufacturer that the product operates in mud and snow better than regular models. This may be misleading. Three Peak Mountain Snow Flake ... is an easily recognisable symbol that features a snowflake with three peaks in the background. This is the only marked element that confirms the actual winter parameters of a tyre. Models with this marking are suitable for demanding weather conditions and retain their performance at temperatures below zero. The 3PMSF symbol is standardised and controlled by EU authorities, guaranteeing that the product meets the conditions of rigorous testing and is suitable for operation in difficult weather conditions. The Three Peak Mountain Snow Flake symbol looks like this: No other marking on a tyre can signify that the tyre has passed standardised winter performance tests. If your M+S tyre doesn't also carry the 3PMSF symbol it may not necessarily perform as well as you might hope in winter conditions. In EU countries that legislate the use of winter tyres at certain times of year, the 3PMSF symbol is supposed to be what the police look for if you are stopped (you don't have to be pulled over, some countries/regions operate checkpoints where everyone is stopped and checked). I have heard stories of people getting away with tyres having only the M+S marking, but it's just that: they got away with it - there's no guarantee they or anyone else would get away with it next time.

I currently have all-season tyres fitted (on my car). They still have the 3 peaks+snowflake logo so meet the criteria for winter tyres (and thus are legal in places which require winter tyres during the...er...winter) but they work fine all year round. (Whisper it, but, in 2017 I left my winter tyres on all year. That was because they had lots of tread left, whereas my "summer" tyres were close to the limit, and I was planning to replace the car within 12 months so didn't feel like gifting the new owner a set of nearly new tyres. Anyway, guess what? The winter tyres worked just fine through the summer as well! I didn't crash and die horribly. I didn't actually notice even the slightest of problems with grip, braking or MPG running winter tyres through the summer. OK, I Iive in Scotland so it stays colder, longer here, but in the Central Belt we still get four to six months of "summer" tyre temperatures [see below] day and night.) The compound used is supposed to perform better than "summer" tyres below about 7°C. They also shift surface water better than "summer" tyres. (I was astonished at the lack of drama driving through a big puddle at some speed on my winter tyres, compared to the obvious aquaplaning that would often occur with "summer" rubber on. Again, surface and standing water hazards are rather more prevalent in Scotland than in some other parts of the UK.)

It's a directive (European Union Directive 2008/89/EC, to be precise), not a regulation, hence it's implemented differently in different EU countries (and the UK is a member of the EU at the moment, in case you hadn't noticed). There will therefore have been a section added somewhere (probably to the C&U regs) to make DRLs compulsory under UK law. EU regulations apply automatically (the technical term is "self-executing") - they don't need enabling legislation in each state like directives do, and the content of the regulation applies everywhere. Individual states can provide supporting legislation which extends the regulation - or provides specific local rules if the regulation allows for it. The most well-known one at the moment is the GDPR, which everyone was excited about earlier this year. Seasonal joke: He's making a list, And checking it twice; Gonna find out who's naughty and nice. Santa Claus is in breach of Article 14 of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679

My 2017 vintage car doesn't. When I have the headlights set to 'auto', there is nothing to indicate whether or not they are on - unless it's actually dark enough to be able to see the light they're emitting. It's a point of some debate on the forum for that model of car. (The original version did have a light in the instrument panel to show when the headlights were on, even in auto. For some reason no-one seems to know, it was removed in the facelift version.)

Here is an plan I roughed up a while back for Bredon on 8ft x 4ft, using a mix of Streamline (in the scenic area) and Setrack (in the storage sidings) points, and Setrack 2nd and 3rd radius curves: It's not exactly the same as Bredon since it doesn't have the second loop in the station, but that could easily be corrected - there should be enough room, especially if you use Streamline track spacing through the station rather then Setrack which (for some reason) I did for this one. It doesn't use any curved points. There is room for an operating well on the right hand side (although that does take a chunk out of the scenic area - Bredon had a nice rural hillside there). The straight track is also Setrack but obviously doesn't have to be. Some of the Setrack curves are cut down to match the Streamline nominal turnout angle (12° rather than Setrack's 22½°). If you use Streamline Insulfrog points they work exactly the same as Setrack ones. If you use Electrofrog (preferable IMO, even without modifying for frog switching etc etc) then all you need to add is a few judiciously placed IRJs. Happy to PM you the AnyRail file if interested.

A selection of previous RMWeb threads on this subject, for your edification: Best rolling road for oo gauge Which is the best Rolling Road ? Rolling Roads Rolling road OO Gauge Rolling Road Proses rolling road Rolling Road? which one

There's a few on the HST retirements and secondary deployments thread eg this post and this post. To be honest, I think this thread should be merged with that one since they're both covering the same ground.

Not everywhere. Try interpreting a headlamp flash as "after you" in Italy and you'll likely find yourself on the wrong end of an insurance claim. The point about not flashing, waving, or giving any other such signals to other road users is that you very likely do not have an adequate appreciation as to whether it is actually safe for them to proceed. The classic example being the driver who flashes another to turn right across them, unaware that another vehicle is passing them on their left. Yes, it's up to the person being flashed to make that call, but it's surprising how often people seem to get agitated if you don't go when flashed at. I don't flash people to go, and I rarely 'obey' other people's flashes. I leave more than adequate space to let waiting vehicles in to queues and such like but if they don't want to take the opportunity, or don't notice it, or think I might just be busy on my mobile (I won't be) and will suddenly close the gap when I notice what's going on, that's up to them. I don't regard it as a courtesy to effectively pester people to accept my giving way to them. Doing 80mph on motorways is "custom and practice" but that argument won't get you very far in court.

This is the book the OP is referring to: https://peco-uk.com/products/track-plans-for-layouts-to-suit-all-locations The plans in there are definitely not intended to be used with Setrack, and would take a fair bit re-working to be even close to feasible using Setrack IMO. Peco publishes this book of track plans: https://peco-uk.com/collections/oo-ho-16-5mm/products/oo-ho-planbook specifically for Setrack. Given the shortcomings of Setrack pointwork (primarily dead frogs and tight radii) the small additional effort of using Streamline, especially Elecrofrog points, is worth it IMO. A decent track planning application like AnyRail or XtrackCAD can be useful tool for finessing a track plan on virtual paper before starting to lay real rail and sleepers (but even then you'll likely find you need to tweak some of the dimensions when moving from virtual to physical).

Those broken white lines don't seem to fit within any of the categories laid down in rules 127-132. However, the guidance for joining a motorway is pretty clear: Rule 259 You should give priority to traffic already on the motorway check the traffic on the motorway and match your speed to fit safely into the traffic flow in the left-hand lane https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/motorways-253-to-273

I've encountered the problem on quite a few badly-designed web sites, such as outdoor/hillwalking/climbing gear retailers. I'd say that it's certainly not confined to model railways. It is a particular pain if they require you to register before they'll show you a properly priced-up basket. Whether any of them wonder why they get people coming on their site, putting stuff in the basket, registering and then deleting the basket contents and leaving would be interesting to know. They may feel that they get more business by taking advantage of customers' intertia: "Oh well, I've put in the basket now, and gone to the bother of registering, and it is only £4..."

Don't think I've ever seen a car in a kerbside recycling bin! I'm not sure that cars are simply crushed these days - at least not without having had all non-ferrous materials stripped out first. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_recycling. I'd take the first paragraph with a pinch of salt: it appears to be somewhat simplistic and a bit garbled. The "Process" paragraph has a much more useful high-level description of the main stages involved in recycling a modern car - and yes, the stripped bodyshells do end up being put through a bl00dy big shredder!

That might be because it is a different programme. The producers of that programme could have, you know, chosen to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that under-18s would be appropriately safeguarded? Or, no, wait...maybe it was just 'elf'n'safety gorn maaad! But I doubt it.

It's the 'jokey' nasal tone of voice that really grates. I also find that the ######-tonk piano music gets pretty annoying after a while. And the excruciating puns cease to be amusing as they get more and more tortuous and laboured. I like a good pun as much as the next man, but most of them just aren't good. "Ship hot" was particularly poor IMO (IIRC the presenter who delivered that one was the taller, vaguely sensible one rather than the shorter Ron Manager one who is the usual culprit). It feels as if the production company can't quite resist inserting subliminal cues to suggest that these "grown men playing with toy trains" are actually a bit ridiculous. EDIT: Good grief! RMWeb apparently believes that the commonly used name for ragtime-influenced piano music which emphasises rhythm over melody or harmony is in some way offensive. Note that the etymology section of that article makes zero reference to the derogatory term for white people being an element of the term.

To my great astonishment* the whole series is available on Channel Five's own online catch-up service: https://www.my5.tv/the-great-model-railway-challenge/season-1 * Not really.

Drinks cans are usually aluminium whereas blades will be steel. Mixing them up like this may make the waste non-recyclable (and possibly not just yours, but any waste in the load that yours goes in). I'd be inclined to use a baked bean tin or a soup can that you know is ferrous (you could use a magnet to check). (AIUI metals are commonly sorted for recycling by being shredded and then passed under an electromagnet. Ferrous metals stick to the magnet, aluminium and alu alloys don't. I don't know whether the shredders would do enough to completely separate the blades from the remains of the can. Using a steel can would seem to me to be erring on the side of caution.)

You may stand by everything you said. You're still wrong. Title to the funds does not transfer to the bank. If you make a cash deposit ie you hand over notes and coins, then title to the cash does transfer to the bank. You cannot later get back the notes and coins you deposited, and I would humbly suggest that it would be idiotic to expect that. However, as has already been pointed out by at least one other poster, notes and coins aren't "money": they are a representation of value which can be physically exchanged between parties in a transaction. Since notes were introduced and coins ceased to be minted from precious metals, cash* has no inherent value in itself. Deposit cash with a bank and the cash becomes an asset for the bank (you can even think of it as sitting in a big safe somewhere) but with a balancing liability on the bank's books due to the positive balance in the account in which the bank holds the funds in your name. Your account with the bank is a liability for the bank, not an asset, because you can ask the bank to return the funds to you at any time (subject to the terms and conditions of the account eg 30 days notice of withdrawal - which you will have signed up to when the account was opened - as well as any regulations which the bank has to observe, as previously noted). If you ask to withdraw the funds in cash then the bank has to draw down on its assets (reserves of cash, in this instance, which may or may not include the physical notes & coins the bank took title of when you made your deposit) to do that. When the bank hands over the cash to you then title to the physical notes & coins the bank gives you transfers to you. But the title to the funds never changes: title was yours while the funds were held by the bank in your account as a liability on its books, and title to the funds remains yours once the bank has discharged that liability by handing over an equivalent value of cash assets to you. While your money is on deposit with the bank your account with the bank is an asset to you. The bank's position is essentially flat, because it holds an asset (the cash which it took title of when you deposited it with them) and a matching liability - the funds in your account. So in the overall balance of things, you are still the one who's ahead, because you are the one who owns the asset (the funds in the account). If it sounds complicated that's because it is. It gets more complicated still when you start trying to understand how it works when there is no physical asset like cash involved, eg when using a payment card, writing a cheque, or making a electronic banking transfer. Trying to argue that there are obvious, simple ways to understand this stuff is fundamentally mistaken IMO. It has taken lots of clever people** hundreds of years to build the financial systems we have today. Unfortunately those systems don't succumb to simplistic analysis just because we want them to. And arguably that is a problem, if the users of a service can't readily grasp at least a basic idea of how it really works. Then again, most people haven't the slightest clue how mobile phones really work, but it doesn't stop them using the things obsessively... * For the purpose of this discussion "cash" should henceforward be understood to mean coins & money, rather than in the accounting sense of liquid funds. ** With varying motivations, some not always entirely honest and transparent.

Did you really mean "misogynistic" - were they upset about Kathy being a judge, or the presence of (swoon) women of the female gender on some of the teams? Another day, another reason not to bother looking at Facebook. It's Twinsta'sapp for me from now on! (<---- This is a lie.)

Wrong. No, they can't. No, it isn't. Checks on large deposits and withdrawals are mandated by anti money laundering legislation, and other regulations which banks are obliged to comply with. Nothing to do with deposits being owned by the bank, everything to do with trying to make sure that the money is legitimately owned by the person trying to withdraw it. (Something the proverbial shoebox under the bed cannot enforce.) Are those sterling accounts or would you have to make deposits in the local currency? If the latter than you need to take a look at the local inflation rate to know whether the interest rates are any good. (Inflation is basically a measure of the loss of value of money: transfer funds from a low inflation currency to a high inflation one and it loses value quicker.) Also worth checking how easily you could get the money out i.e. what exchange controls operate in the country in question. And what your tax position would be on interest earned in that country. And whether there is any kind of depositor guarantee scheme. And what legal jurisdiction you'd have to get involved with if you ever ended up having to sue them. And so on and so on. But I'm sure* these are nothing more than piffling trivialities when it comes to getting rich quick. * No, I'm not. That was a lie.

Alison Graham is the editor of RT. TBH I don't think much of her: far too many of her editorials seem to be based on her own personal preferences ("I don't want to see..." style 'observations') rather than objective assessments of a programme's quality (or lack thereof). When I find that she likes a programme that I enjoyed it's usually nothing more than coincidence (quite often the things she says she liked about a programme bear no relation at all to what appealed to me about it).

AIUI one reason why Yealmpton was that way because the line was originally going to go onwards to Modbury. I believe similar reasons lie behind the location of the Fairford goods yard (though not involving Modbury, obviously). So the history behind a line sometimes also has a hand to play in the layout of stations.

Last I heard was that, following the initial performance tests on the Inverness route, NR had said there was no way the IET was going anywhere near the Highland Main Line without significant improvements being achieved.

Funny - except that it's Wabtec who are fitting the retention tanks (just not quickly enough). I'm not sure that the unrefurbished Mk3s will have been anywhere near Wabtec, AIUI they're from a different source (possibly XC?) to the ex-GWR ones that are going through Doncaster and causing the problems - mainly due to unexpectedly high levels of corrosion in difficult-to-access places from what I've heard. (Hmm, maybe GWR's HSTs weren't quite so immune to the soaking they sometimes got at Dawlish as some people liked to suggest.) There is almost always a Wabtec van parked up at Haymarket depot when I go past on the tram. The HST refurb programme does seem to be keeping them quite occupied.