ejstubbs

Or sell it as a going concern, or pay someone to run it for them? I rather suspect that money issues may be a factor behind the "family responsibilities". Maybe he's been doing a lot of unpaid work to keep it going but the family situation has changed and now means that he no longer has the time available to do that, and the museum doesn't bring in enough to pay someone else to do what he's been doing. Or maybe more simply the museum has been haemorrhaging money that the family can't afford any more. Whatever the underlying reasons, it's a shame that the museum is closing but I would have thought it likely that the cars will find new homes rather than be scrapped. They just won't necessarily be homes where they can be seen by the public. I'm afraid I tend to agree with Hroth as well: in a museum or private collection most of the cars would at least be preserved/conserved (or at least that should be the case). Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching historic sports cars race* as much as the next closet petrolhead but I am also well aware that: (a) Running a race car is expensive whatever its age, and will only be more so if it is a valuable and/or technically complex example. So it's basically a wealthy man's game, albeit one that's fun to watch**; (b) Despite everyone's best intentions, sometimes one of these valuable records of past engineering accomplishments does end up getting bent or broken to a greater or lesser extent. As well as adding further to drain on the owner's wallet, this arguably can detract from both the monetary and the historical value of the vehicle if it cannot be repaired using original components or materials (shades here of the arguments about a certain well-known green steam locomotive's last overhaul/rebuild). Again, I do enjoy watching some of these beautiful antiques being raced, but I don't regard it as the only valid way to preserve the majority of them. I think that the technical issues that Hroth highlights have some similarities to those being experienced by some teams in the diesel preservation movement: you just can't get the parts. At least a steam engine can be fixed with a welding kit, spanners and a hammer...(he said, not entirely seriously, before any steam preservationists take offence). * I don't know whether the ITV coverage of this year's Goodwood Revival meeting is still available on catch-up, but there was some cracking racing in that - Troy Corser on the pre-war BMW was a highlight in the vintage motorcycle race. Nonetheless, a few cars did end up rather...er...the worse for wear. ** Actually, the pits between races, the paddock and even the spectators' car park are often at least as good value as the on-track action.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/burton/driver-cheats-death-a38-burton-1790794 It looks like the driver of the car two behind the driving school car might have started to indicate (difficult to be sure from the video), and the van driver was undertaking a tad enthusiastically, but the car driver does seem to have shown extremely poor rearward observation before executing their manoeuvre. The incident appears to have occurred here.

An additional useful check, particularly if accurate information is important enough in the circumstances, is to search for information about the same subject outside of Wikipedia. This mitigates the risk that the references given in Wikipedia have been selected precisely because they support what's written in the article. The most obvious source of such information is Google, but you do need to beware of Google finding web sites that basically just regurgitate what's in Wiki (although some of these - an increasing number, actually, it seems to me - are trivially easy to spot since they simply replicate the Wiki entry verbatim). Beyond electronic sources it's back to physical reference books and original documents, which is why we still have libraries and museums. The big difference being that Wiki can be changed. If someone writes a reference book and someone else disagrees with what's said within, the only recourse that second someone has is to write another reference book, or enter in to a debate with the original author in the pages of a journal specific to the subject. The first, in the extreme case, requires the "seeker after truth" to read every flippin' book that's ever been written on the subject! The second usually takes place in a forum so obscure that most people, even many of those with an interest in the subject, will never see it. With a Wiki article, all the changes throughout its life can easily be seen (there's a "View History" tab at the top of every article, right next to the "Edit" tab) so it's straightforward to review - with further reference to Wiki's own discussion forums - any debates about the accuracy or relevance of the content. It's all in one place. (Which doesn't, of course, mean that it's not still worthwhile looking elsewhere for corroboration or contradiction.)

Two current listings, each one with mismatched description and photographs: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-38-080-12-Ton-Southern-2-2-Planked-Vent-Van-LMS-Grey-Wagon-00-gauge/323480437507 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bachmann-37-803-12-Ton-Planked-Ventilated-Van-LMS-Grey-wagon-in-VGC-00-gauge/323480072013 In fact one listing has photos of the item described in the other listing, and vice versa. (It's not helped by the box label photo in each listing being correct, but the box contents being wrong. Basically, the guy doesn't really know exactly what he's selling.) I contacted the seller yesterday pointing out his mistake, and saying that if he can fix it so I know what I'd actually get if I won either auction then I would happily enter a realistic bid. No response so far. Why are so many sellers so useless at listing their stuff accurately, and helping buyers if anything is unclear or wrong? (See also my post #78 and rab's post #79). Bet they blame eBay when they no bids or low bids, too.

Blimey, I never knew that Eric Morecambe was a Bevin Boy. Says something for someone's character that they can emerge from something like that* and still retain such a whacky sense of humour. According to Wiki, Brian Rix volunteered for it. * I have been down a working coal mine once, back in the 1980s. Frankly, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy as a way to make a living. In the 1940s they would likely have been even less pleasant.

My understanding is that repeater signs are not required for NSL on unlit roads, or for 30 limits where the regular street lighting condition applies. Other 30 limits which have been imposed eg by a TRO do require repeater signs. Roads with street lighting can also have a higher limit allowed, in which case the limit must be signed including repeater signs*. [Happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken on some of those details.] For 20mph limits, it depends how the start of limit is signed. If it's signed as a 20mph zone: then repeater signs are not required by the regulations. If it's just a round 20 limit sign: then repeater signs are required. In all cases, the relevant authority can opt to put up repeaters even when they're not actually required by the regulations, to help avoid confusion. Helpfully, that's what Edinburgh council did when they rolled out the 20 limits here, even though all the 20 limits are signed as zones (some of the new 20mph zones had speed bumps in place already, but no new ones have been deployed). Unfortunately it doesn't stop some ignorant people from doing 20mph on clear, safe, streets with regular street lighting and no repeater signs. (On the other hand, nothing seems to stop some people from exceeding the correctly signposted speed limits, sometimes by quite a fair margin.) * There is an urban, lit 40mph limit road near where I live. It is fully signed. At the risk of drifting badly off topic, I don't think I've ever seen a vehicle parked on that road showing lights at night, even though Highway Code Rule 249 says it's a legal requirement. Nor have I ever seen any action taken against offenders. Mind you, the wording of RVLR Reg 24 is so convoluted that it's quite possible that such parking is actually permissible, so this could an example of the Highway Code writers erring on the side of caution. Rule 248 is another not very well known rule which is regularly flouted with impunity in residential streets, and in this case CUR Reg 101 seems fairly clear: "no person shall, except with the permission of a police officer in a uniform, cause or permit any motor vehicle to stand on a road at any time between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise unless the near side of the vehicle is as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway". In the case of my awkward neighbour, I assume that he would regard parking with half of each offside wheel on the kerb (which I can't help feeling can be doing his expensive low-profile tyres little good) as having the near side of his manhood-compensating BMW "as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway". Actually though, on reflection, I suspect that he just DGAF.

But all too often the dangerous behaviour itself was deliberate - it's the consequences which were not intended. As per the examples offered by Stationmaster Mike (and reference also some apologists for what happened at Great Heck). Despite what melmerby wrote, I don't believe that a rational person who is applying an acceptable degree of concentration to their driving can "accidentally" text while proceeding along a dark road. Hence, as Ohmisterporter noted, the police these days preferring the term 'collision' to 'accident'. Apart from anything else,'collision' is a simple statement of fact: one or more vehicles has/have collided with something/each other. Use of the word 'accident' to describe an incident at a time when the causes and contributory factors are wholly unknown implies an unjustifiable pre-supposition that there was no deliberate intent involved.

I did like the nod to one of Chris Chibnall's predecessors as a scifi/fantasy scriptwriter: the crane scene was surely meant as a reference to Nigel Kneale's Quatermass and the Pit? One of the shots of Jodie at the end of the jib immediately made me think of James Donald in the Hammer Films version, riding to his doom but saving London from a Martian invasion in the process.

Seems to have been said by lots of people about all kinds of competitive sports, including rugby (unsurprisingly, if you have any idea of what goes on in the scrum and during rucks, even these days), baseball and NASCAR as well as the NFL. Myself, I prefer to imagine that it was first coined by James T Kirk when he reprogrammed the Star Fleet Academy Kobayashi Maru simulation. One problem with that view is that he isn't due to be born until 2233. But I'm sure there's a simple explanation. (Link for those who know not to what I refer.)

According to the article, the jury cleared her of death by dangerous driving, which I believe would have had a significantly higher sentence. It does seem that the "there but for the grace of God" sentiment enters in to verdicts and sentencing rather too often in such cases. Magistrates, judges and jurors are far more likely to be familiar with driving as an activity than they are most other activities that have a significant risk of causing serious injury or death to third parties if carried out carelessly or recklessly. More than one study has found that most of the people surveyed thought that they were a better than average driver. And yet in this case a dozen random people seem to have been able to agree that texting while driving at night does not constitute driving that "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous" (the definition of dangerous driving in the 1991 RTA) even though it's illegal. Arguably, it's tantamount to a tacit admission by the jury that they would do it too. Lack of enforcement contributes significantly to 'normalisation' of law breaking behind the wheel IMO. (And yes, that does mean that I disagree with royaloak's remark in post #2856.)

Ah, so the vehicle in question should have vacuum brake hose fittings (and two brake shoes per wheel I think?) The specific RTR ones I have in mind don't.

Some of the RTR LMS ventilated van offerings feature a white "X" on the van door. Could some kind soul explain to a humble seeker after knowledge what the significance of this was? (I'm aware that there are 'issues' with most of those RTR models. Those have been discussed fairly comprehensively on other threads so I don't think we need to go in to it again here.)

Sub-prime lending turns out to be a bit risky*. Who knew? * Especially once the FCA started to clamp down on the more usurious practices in the industry.

I saw him on Graham Norton's show last week. He gave a solid performance, and then at the end asked "Was that all right?" Would have been partly tongue in cheek but that's all part of his character.

Some sellers are astonishingly slipshod in their listings. I randomly alighted on the listing for item number 332819017754 the other day and in an idle moment decided to peruse it further. Turned out that there are three different coaches in the photos - including close-ups of three different boxes! - although the listing says two. I actually e-mailed the seller to point this out and got the reply "There are two coaches only". No indication of which two are actually for sale! Unsurprisingly, the auction expired with no bids. In this case one couldn't even use the 'excuse' that whatever you get, it's cheap: a £40 starting price (including the swinging £10 postage - I thought eBay had clamped down on nonsense like that) is pushing your luck a bit for a couple of Bachmann LMS Period 1 coaches - more so if you can't actually be bothered to describe them properly.

I haven't bought an AP since some time in the mid 1980s when I stopped buying SLRs. Do they still have a lavishly illustrated article about some aspect or another of 'glamour' photography every other week? I'd be surprised if that was the case: I'd have thought that Rule 34 would have destroyed any lingering appeal it might have had in that regard. (Not for nothing was it nicknamed Amateur Pornographer back in the day.)

I thought I'd posted this before, maybe not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 "The most points on a valid licence belong to a 44-year-old woman in Oxfordshire. The licence has 51 penalty points." I wonder if the beaks ever take in to account the "exceptional hardship" which could result to a third party if one of these individuals went on to cause a serious accident? In the case cited by laurenceb it could very readily be argued that, if driving is your job, then you should be extra careful about not breaking the applicable laws. If you aren't, and you lose your job because you're banned from driving, then logically the next step should be to find a different job which does not require the skill which you have demonstrated to the satisfaction of a judge that you don't actually have... In other 'hardship' cases which come to light from time to time one might be tempted to bemoan the fact that society has apparently become so organised as to make it unreasonably difficult to carry out a lot of normal activities without having ready access to a car. (Then again, there are such things as taxis and private hire cars*.) Choosing not to ban drivers who are demonstrably unable to abide by the laws which are put in place in order to reduce risks on the road would seem to require a evaluation of the potential residual risk to third parties by doing so. I strongly suspect that this happens rarely if at all. * It's relatively straightforward to find reports online of people who have 'done the math' and decided that using taxis instead of running a car can work out cheaper surprisingly often. The problem is that, once you have bought a car there is an implicit need to justify the sunk costs - including VED, insurance etc. But that argument is void if you're not actually allowed to drive.

The vehicle carrying the cam negotiated said roundabout without any drama. Eejit in the van seemed not even to see it!

Lighter fuel load later in the race might make a difference? (Just a guess: no idea whether it would, wouldn't or couldn't.)

This is local railway for local people. There's nothing for overseas visitors here...

There seems to be something odd going on which, albeit peripherally and probably without their knowledge, involves this shop. On the 2K Technologies web site (though not in their eBay shop) they have this item listed: http://www.2ktechnologies.com/?product=Bachmann-30-170-l-m-s-brake-composite-5291-split-from-thames-clyde-set-t48-post I have found three other "shops" which have the same item listed, using the exact same photograph and item title, and with the wording taken from the "Additional Information" tab on the 2k Technologies page. All at different prices, and all substantially lower than what 2K Technologies are asking: http://www.vvogshop.top/locomotives-c-100_101_3851_3859/Bachmann-30170-lms-brake-composite-5291-split-from-thames-clyde-set-t48-post-p-8060.shtml http://www.koitshop.top/locomotives-c-690_749_752_754/Bachmann-30170-lms-brake-composite-5291-split-from-thames-clyde-set-t48-post-p-5707.htm&language=en http://www.vtkoymalls.top/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=7127 The sites themselves all have the same "about us" info which burbles on about being "a leading international online fashion store". Two out of those three web sites show the PayPal logo at the foot of the page but they don't actually take PayPal at the checkout - you have to enter payment card details directly. On the 'French' site I found a listing for a Lima non-powered bogie which is a straight lift from this live eBay listing. These 'parasite' sites smell strongly to me of a scam: fake web sites built using other retailers' listings to lure punters in and steal their card info. I don't believe that 2K Technologies have any involvement in this, they've simply been used unwittingly as a source of fake product info for the scam sites. Bottom line: beware of the above three web sites, but by all means support 2K Technologies either through their web site or their eBay shop.

Screwfix is owned by Kingfisher plc, same as B&Q. So it's not really competition, just a different brand. (Wickes is owned by Travis Perkins, BTW.)

"From November, passengers will still be able to take a small personal bag into the cabin, as long as it fits under the seat in front." As a six-footer with longer than average legs I hate this ridiculous idea that the space for your feet is where you should put your hand luggage. Handbags and smaller items like that maybe, but some airlines ask to see your hand luggage when you check in/bag drop, and put a "goes under the seat in front" label on anything that's not a wheely case of the maximum allowed size. Those labels don't last long on my bags. A 25l or 30l rucksack is easily within the size limits but absolutely will not fit sensibly under the seat in front alongside my size 10s. And no, I'm not prepared to risk DVT by sitting with my feet tucked under and my knees pressing in to the small of the back of the person in front of me for the whole flight.

Those disclaimers mean nothing if the race organisers can be shown not to have taken all reasonable steps to mitigate foreseeable risks. I strongly suspect that the race organisers also have a tidy sum of insurance cover just in case! (Some race series owners, including F1, require this of any venue hosting one of their races: https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2015/01/09/f1s-100-million-insurance-policy/#63a3b9564b1d.)

Looks like my Hot Wheels track when I was a kid! (Is it really a good idea to have vehicles which such bouncy suspension travelling at very high speed in a built up area? Just wondering. I mean, I can see there fences and stuff but still...)