ejstubbs

Make him Queen. OK, a life peerage then: Lord Lewis of St Evenage.

I'm not so sure that's particularly common these days, particularly with the rise of "living wills" and even more so the proliferation of Powers of Attorney to allow an elderly relative's affairs to be looked after while they're still alive. AFAIK there's nothing to stop the will being read as soon as the death is discovered (or even before that) and there's certainly no requirement for that melodramatic staple, "the reading of the will" with all the family members gathered round to find out who's been disinherited and how many secret love children and bigamous spouses the estate is going to have to be shared with. Many people leave a copy of their will with their spouse/partner/closest sibling or similar, on the understanding that it can be opened immediately upon their death. Once probate has been obtained the will is registered as a document of public record, so if a distant relative or grasping charity believes that the executors have not given them what they were due then it's a fairly straightforward matter to get a copy of the will from the Probate Office to check. You can even do it online these days.

An estate with no living inheritors under intestacy law is known as "bona vacantia" ("vacant goods") and does indeed to go the Treasury unless the assets are in Cornwall, or within the traditional boundaries of the county palatine of Lancashire, in which case it goes to the Duchy of Cornwall (ie Prince Charles) or the Duchy of Lancaster. In both these cases the Duchy actually puts the money into a charitable trust to be distributed to 'good causes'. However, their idea of a good cause and yours may not exactly coincide: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/01/prince-charles-intestate-cash-cornwall.

I find it increasingly annoying having to wade through listings which claim the item is located somewhere in the UK when, once you check the expected delivery dates, they are obviously coming from China. What's even more annoying is when they quote expected delivery dates which make it look as if the item is actually coming from the UK (often even saying "UK stock" in the listing), mark the item as dispatched within 24 hours of you placing the order, and a week later it still hasn't shown up. The fact that, when challenged, they immediately refund suggests to me that they are just relying on being able to get away with it a high percentage of the time. Any seller claiming to be UK-based but whose name sounds like a Bangkok ladyboy's stage name always causes suspicion...

I do think it's a bit harsh to block someone for returning something that was damaged during shipping. It is, after all, the seller's responsibility to arrange for the the purchased item to be delivered safely to the buyer. It's your decision, of course, but I don't think a buyer is being unreasonable in returning an item that isn't as described in the listing when it turns up on their doorstep, whether that's down to misrepresentation or a careless carrier.

Checking hornbyguide.com again, it states that R.2179 was Duchess of Hamilton in 2000, then Duchess of Gloucester in 2001. I've generally assumed that the catalogue number changed even if the only change to the model was name & number, so they may be wrong. The only instance I can find on eBay of R.2179 being Duchess of Hamilton, and that's a listing by a seller who's fairly notorious on another RMWeb thread (although in this case he/she does say that it has been "professionally renamed", which suggests that it was originally Duchess of Gloucester). So it looks like hornbyguide.com is wrong in this instance (which is not unknown, TBH). The picture of the model on hornbyguide.com doesn't actually show a legible name or number on the loco. I should have spotted and double-checked the name discrepancy before posting! So that makes three issues of the Hornby model of DoH in streamlined form, all of which would have had the fixed pony truck.

Four times, as far as I can discover, primarily by looking on eBay: R.2179 in 2000 & 2001 R.2689 in 2008 - this was the first "NRM Special Edition" version R.3101 in 2012 - again sold as an NRM Special Edition R.3339 in 2016 As far as I know all the above used the same body tooling. I believe that R.2179 had the pivoting pony truck; the fixed truck came in with R.2689. (I know that R.2689 has the fixed pony truck, because I currently have one. I'm guessing about R.2179, but it's an educated guess because I currently also have Duchess of Devonshire from the Royal Highlander train pack - it was a cheap way to get 3 x LMS coaches - which I believe shortly pre-dated the release of R.2689, and that loco's got the pivoting pony truck. FWIW I prefer the pivoting truck, even though it pretty much rules out having any detail under the cab. On tight curves I think it looks slightly less daft to have the pony truck wheels at least running on the rails, albeit hanging out away from the cab, compared to a cab that's floating in space anyway but with no visible means of support. But that's just me. Other people are of course entitled to their own tastes in the matter, especially if they have space to accommodate larger curves on their layouts.)

They're fairly common in France, too, and I think they work well. So long as they're signposted so that people know they'll get stopped if they're over the limit, only total t0ssers will actually get stopped. As for catching people who run the light if it's red: if only some technology existed that could do that...oh, hang on...

Simple answer: Long enough to accommodate a typical branch line train. If it's a terminus then that needs to include room for the loco (if services are loco-hauled) otherwise the passengers in the rear coach may not be able to disembark. That's the absolute minimum. You can get away with having to back the train out slightly to allow the loco to run round, if that's how the station was operated (ie not necessarily required if the usual service is a push-pull loco hauled train, or a multiple unit or dare I say it an HST). Generally, though, it looks better if regular passenger traffic at the station doesn't look as if it has had to be crammed in. A bit of space in the platform helps to reduce the "train set" look.

I don't think it's particularly arguable. Vettel was fully alongside Massa all the way through the left-hander and Massa ran all the way out to the white line on the exit. I don't think Vettel could realistically have backed off at any point, and my understading is that if the other car is alongside you, you are supposed to give it enough room so if anything Massa was at fault there. As they neared the right-hander Massa either made room for Vettel, or moved left with a view to getting a better run at the apex: Vettel stayed on Massa's inside and actually had at least two wheels well inside the white line at the moment that he actually got his nose properly in front. Youtube clip here (until it gets taken down). If Massa hadn't crowded Vettel the way he did, Vettel would probably still have got past but wouldn't have needed to put all four wheels over the white line to avoid Massa at the exit to the left-hander before completing the pass at the right-hander. I reckon it was a six and two threes, racing incident. (Do we actually know that it wasn't investigated? I suspect a lot of what goes on between the marshal posts, the stewards and the race director doesn't make it immediately, if ever, in to the public.) I do think that Vettel has got up to some shenanigans in the past, including (arguably/debatably) at the start of this race. But I wouldn't be able to agree that what Vettel did there was anything like as clear-cut as what Verstappen did to Raikkonen the week before.

I have a resin building that I'd like to reduce in size - basically chop part of one side off to turn it in to a partial low-relief. I've never attempted anything of the sort before so I was wondering what the dos and don'ts and gotchas might be. Resin seems to be vulnerable to chipping so presumably care and a fine toothed saw (razor saw?) are both advisable. I've read that it produces a lot of dust - is this a particular hazard because of its chemical composition, like MDF, or just because inhalation of small particulates is something best avoided on principle?

Sounds to me like the bike might actually be a size too big for her, if there's that little of the seatpost showing. (Or she has her saddle too low, which seems to be more common among female than male commuter cyclists.) Fitting proper, SKS-style mudguards rather than the crudbuster type MTB mudguard that mounts on the seatpost is preferable for commuting IMO. Proper mudguards are readily available in sizes to fit MTBs. They provide more protection against road spray (which is the main thing you want for commuting) both for the rider - because they come all the way down to the bottom bracket at the front - and for following cyclists. They don't take up any space on the seatpost, and commonly have a reflector fitted as well. That leaves the whole of the exposed seatpost for lights. Clearance round a normal MTB tyre may look a little tight but you don't need a fat, knobbly tyre for commuting - in fact it's probably just going to slow you down and make the ride harder work than if you had, say, a slightly narrower profile semi-slick. It's also perfectly OK to fit the rear light on the offside seat stay. When I were a lad bikes often had brackets, or braze-ons to take a bracket, on the offside seat stay for precisely this purpose. But even modern lights can usually be finagled to mount there. You could even use the cheap wee strap-on ones that JDW mentions (currently available from Aldi FWIW) to make a row of lights all the way down the seat stay! All the above suggestions rather assume that it's a hardtail MTB. If a full susser then, well, commuting on one of those is just daft IMO.

I would disagree with some of what Noel says, or at least think that some clarification/further detail might be useful: Laying flexitrack try and keep to 3rd radius or higher if possible To put it another way: if you have to have curves tighter than about 2ft radius (3rd radius is ~18") then think seriously about using Setrack. It can be difficult to get flexi to bend smoothly at small radii, and to get it to stay that way. Constant radius throughout a 90 degree bend is best if possible I'm not sure if this is referring to a general principle, or just to the use of Setrack. If the first then it's simply wrong: real railways use transition curves to avoid the sudden change of direction you get going from straight track (which is effectively a curve of infinite radius) to a fixed radius curve. Transition curves in flexi are good on a layout as well, if they can be accommodated in the space available. (Do not try to use transition curves if the radius required for space reasons is already tight - you'll end up having an even tighter radius at the apex of the curve, and there's a risk that some of your stock won't like it.) I'd suggest that it's best to use some decent track planning software that understands transition curves if you find yourself contemplating this (IIRC Xtrckcad does understand transition curves; AnyRail doesn't). If the advice was relating to Setrack then I would still disagree. It's perfectly possible to mix Setrack radii through a curve eg using one 4th radius curve or even the 860mm radius 'special curve' as an approximation of transition curve. There's no need for "abrupt angular kinks" if you take the appropriate care in laying the track (and it's just as easy to get kinks if you are slapdash with flexi). I cite in evidence my last layout, during the track laying phase, which used short Streamline turnouts (nominal radius 610mm) combined with 2nd and 3rd radius curves: I'd suggest that it's far from easy to tell at first or even second glance which Setrack radii were used where. Others might disagree. Unfortunately I don't have any video of stock moving on this layout (and it's been dismantled since the photo was taken) but I can assure you that trains traversed those sections perfectly smoothly. In fact, the larger radius of the Streamline points was quite effective as a 'transition' into the tighter radii of the Setrack. Note also that, by careful use of varying curve radii and a few short inserts of straight track, the track separation on the curves was closer to the Streamline 52mm separation than the significantly over-large 67mm of Setrack (and bogie stock could still pass on the curves with no problem whatsoever, as you'd expect). Set track points and curves force wider gap between tracks. Avoid all set track like the plaque. I'd agree that Setrack points are best avoided in anything that aspires to be more than 'just' a train set (they have other drawbacks as well, like their tight radii and dead frogs). As explained above, though, Setrack curves can have definite benefits if space constraints demand curve radii under ~2ft. Even Setrack straight track can have benefits in that it's easier to lay dead straight, if that's what you want/need. The rather ugly sleepering at the ends of Setrack sections becomes more or less unnoticeable when the track is ballasted (or you could even just cut off the ugly inch or so at each end). it is nice if the radius of track work joining points initially matches the radius of the point for a visually smooth join which can tighten afterwards. There is nothing worse looking than abrupt angular kinks when one point joins another or track joins a point. I've seen more than a few fabulous layouts ruined by this. As noted above, I'd argue that 'abrupt angular kinks' are a result of careless track laying rather than any inherent problem with mixing radii in curves. Yes, in a perfect world smooth transition curves are the ideal, at least in plain track. But if space constraints have to be met (and the OP did specifically state that the context of their question was the planning of a small layout) then compromises need to be made - and IMO judicious use of Setrack is one of those compromises. If the OP would like to review past discussions on this topic I'd refer them here, here, here and here for starters. After that Google is your friend...

I am also reminded of this classic XKCD strip (well, it's just one picture in fact). Some people need to remember that if someone disagrees with a subjective opinion, that doesn't make the other person wrong, just different. Trying to argue that black is actually white, however, deserves all the ridicule and opprobrium that it attracts. (Which reminds me of the irony that one of the people pointing out the flaws in other posters' arguments about whether or not the Hornby Duchess was the 'right' shade of crimson lake/maroon, was also on the original bullhead points thread being rather dismissive about other people's entirely subjective choices about how they go about building their model railways.)

46233 was pulled off the SRPS Fife circular railtour a couple of years ago due to "gauging issues" (they didn't explicitly say "out of gauge"). That was the year before the fiasco which almost led to 60103 not being able to do its first run on the Borders Railway. Whether the Duchess could have run after all if NR had been persuaded to pull its finger out, as they apparently were for "the most famous engine in the world", I have no idea. Tornado was very nice'n'all but I'd have preferred a Stanier loco.

Is it my imagination, or is that pilot looking at the camera? Say "cheese"! (Though I thought that this sort of behaviour usually resulted in a 'meeting without biscuits'.)

Reminds of the Clarkson joke: Q: How do you know if someone drives a Jaguar? A: They tell you.

Lord Denning, in dismissing a case brought against a cyclist in 1957, stated: "A cyclist is entitled to his wobble". I'm not sure whether this actually established a legal precedent (aka case law - which I think depends on the seniority of the court involved) but it would seem to translate almost directly into modern advice to leave at least 1.5m between your vehicle and a cyclist when passing. 1.5m is almost exactly 5ft in old money, so should not be particularly difficult to grasp even for those who struggle with these new-fangled units of measurement. One problem with this is that far too many drivers seem to have no idea of the true size of their vehicle. On the other hand, I'd suggest that most drivers seem to think that their vehicle is bigger than it really is. I see this almost daily while waiting for my bus in the morning. The stop is on a busy, single carriageway, four-lane road (two lanes in each direction). There is a right turn in to a housing estate and commercial premises fifty yards or so away in the direction the bus comes from, so I am usually looking that way. I really makes we wonder about the competence of some drivers whenever I see a tailback build up behind a vehicle waiting to turn right there simply because the driver of the vehicle behind doesn't think they can get past on the inside - when I can clearly see that they have plenty of clear space at either side. Perhaps this apparent general tendency could be interpreted as meaning that uncomfortably close passes are almost always deliberate, rather than careless? But I wouldn't want to have to defend that idea against deeper scrutiny.

Indeed: above-the-baseboard mounting can work well for certain specific situations, be they mistakes, afterthoughts, or simply unavoidable. The odd platelayers' hut, lamp hut or other small (or even large) building or other scenic detail that can plausibly be located sufficiently adjacent to the point mechanism to hide the motor is OK, but a hut next to every turnout just looks daft! If you haven't built the baseboards yet it's definitely worth aiming to put the bracing where it won't interfere with point motors (and any other bits of mechanism that you might want to fit underneath, such as turntable motors). That requires a reasonably accurate track plan to work from. If, like me you don't have any leeway about where the bracing can goes (in my case because I am recycling baseboards from a previous layout and the bracing is where it is) then track planning and/or laying needs be done with an eye to keeping tie bars away from sub-baseboard timbers in as much as it is practically possible to do so. This is even more important with complex, dense formations of pointwork which - even using rtr track - can turn out not to leave much room for point motors to be sited above the baseboard.

Presumably there was a reason why the 10mph figure was at one time believed to make sense. It would suggest that anything above 10mph is regarded as being a reasonable speed to travel at for a period of time. That's fairly obviously unrealistic these days - but then again perhaps that says more about generally accepted attitudes than anything else. I would argue that cyclists, just like tractors, combine harvesters and the like, should obey Highway Code rule 169: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. And I say this as someone who quite regularly rides a bike on the road - and yes, if I think I'm causing a tailback then I do pull over where it is safe to do so to let the traffic pass. Apparently, though, the official view is that rule 169 does not apply to cyclists. I don't know whether this is because of some nit-picking interpretation of the use of the word "driving", or something else. The rule is in the general "Using the road" section of the code, rather than one of the sections aimed at specific types of road user, so it can't be that. Even if rule 169 doesn't apply, I'd argue that the bit in rule 168 about not obstructing drivers who wish to pass could be argued to apply. And, of course, there are also rules about being considerate to other road users, specifically rule 147. Sticking obdurately to the middle of the lane at 20mph when simply slowing down a little would make it easier for a faster vehicle to pass is not showing consideration (especially if your only reason is because you're trying to set a better time on Strava - speaking of which: whatever happened to the laws about time trails on public roads?) I also think that rule 169 should be observed by vehicles which have to observe lower speed limits than other road users, regardless of whether they could go faster if they were allowed to - such as lorries and caravans. (Actually, tractors also fall in to that category - AIUI they are subject to a 25mph limit. I don't know whether they can go faster - I suspect some modern ones could quite easily.)

Apologies for resurrecting an incident noted previously, but I thought it worth linking to this report of the successful prosecution. ...he drove over the crossing despite the warnings and, as a result, the barriers became trapped between the driver’s cab and the trailer. The train tracks were then obstructed by his vehicle. Hristov, of Lincolnshire, jumped out of his cab and then walked around the vehicle for three minutes, but failed to alert the emergency services to a potentially impending disaster. So he did stop on the crossing, which was why he quite rightly got done for the obstruction. I am, however, disappointed to see the wig-wag lights referred to in the article as "warning lights". They are STOP lights.

My understanding is that UK eBay sellers have to accept PayPal - or at least, their listing has to say that they will - for all categories except Cars, Motorcycles, Aircraft, Boats, Caravans, Trailers, Trucks (commercials), Services and Property. Source: http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/accepted-payments-policy.html A seller can accept credit card payments as well as PayPal, and can indicate in the item description that they won't accept PayPal (I always do this for items that have to be collected - cash on collection only, too easy to be scammed otherwise). Or they can refuse the PayPal payment after you've submitted it and ask you to pay by credit card instead. But, apart from the categories listed above, I don't believe it's possible to stop a buyer from using PayPal at the checkout. Basically, your experience does sound a leedle bit odd to me, though whether it's due to the seller being funny or eBay having a glitch I couldn't say.

Thanks; I had assumed that a loco would be run with the least coal necessary on board if it was going in for overhaul but it's good to have that confirmed. Excess water would be rather easier to remove, I imagine.

Thanks, that makes sense. I have seen quite a few plans and photos of prototype locations where the coal bunker and water crane at a BLT were not immediately adjacent to the loco shed, and I just wondered whether any other provision had to be made (and therefore modelled). But it seems not. Which is handy.

Thinking about where to put the water cranes and coal bunker on my layout, a thought occurred to me. How do you get water and coal to a loco tucked away inside your typical small branch line terminus engine shed? Presumably there must have been some way to get coal in the firebox and water in the tank/tender in order to get some steam up and to get the thing moving in the morning. Or was it standard practice to coal and water the engine before 'putting it to bed'?