ejstubbs

Google it: there are quite a few theories out there, and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer based on the accepted canon sources. The consensus seems to be that Susan was his biological grandchild, and from Gallifrey, but might not be an actual Time Lord (you have to choose to stare into the Untempered Schism, a gap in the fabric of reality that looks into the time vortex, in order to become a true Time Lord, apparently). In any case, it's fairly generally agreed that she wasn't just a human along for the ride like most subsequent of the companions were, and probably was biologically related to The Doctor.

Which is why they have things like Family Railcards, Two Together railcards, and GroupSave (though not all TOCs participate in that scheme). They don't by any means swing the cost balance all the way back in favour of taking the train, but they can take some of the financial sting out of taking advantage of some of the benefits of doing so (less fatiguing than driving, and you can read, sleep, watch a movie etc etc). In my case, most of the journeys I make are actually faster by train than driving. Flying might be marginally faster than the train (once you take pre-departure lead times and onward travel to the actual destination in to account) but our Two Together railcard means it's almost always cheaper for us to take the train rather than the plane when there's two of us, and you avoid the airport hassles. UPDATE: RJS1977 beat me to it!

Do you mean CBBC? 'coz that's where Blue Peter is these days. It's the longest running childrens TV programme in the world. Just as Doctor Who is the longest-running science fiction TV programme in the world which, despite its 16-year hiatus, still has more than three times as many episodes as the longest-running (consecutive) series Smallville - and regular audiences of five million per episode.

The BBC is closing the BBC Store http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40050653 - which IMO is a shame since it contained some original material as well as back catalogue content. However, too many customers are content with streaming services and not enough want to have their own* copy to watch as often as they like in perpetuity. * OK, licensed copy. Interesting article here suggesting how "political correctness" became one of the favourite terms of disparagement amongst the political right. Bill Potts has departed, rescued from her fate as a cyberman by the lassie in the puddle from episode 1 of the series just finished, and spirited away with her to explore the universe. (A bit like Clara running off with Ashildr at the end of series 9 - a bit too much like that, in fact, for some fans of the show.)

I'm old enough to remember watching the very first episode. "Classic Who" also had a predilection for British quarries as filming locations, including Winspit Quarry in Dorset, and Stone Castle Quarry in Kent which later became the site of Bluewater Shopping Centre. There was even one story (The Hand of Fear) which started with the TARDIS materialising in a quarry which was actually meant to be a quarry; in the first episode of the story the Doctor and Sarah Jane Smith got caught in debris from a quarrying blast.

I don't recall anyone arguing that. I certainly didn't: I expressed a personal opinion that table seats can be counterproductive to the ethos of a quiet coach, that's all. You, however, seemed to be suggesting that the idea of a family of four not being able to sit together at a table was unthinkable - which is clearly not the case, given the numerous examples put forward (including by yourself) of such a thing happening on a daily basis with absolutely no ill effects.

According to AnyRail, the Dublo track spacing was 57mm; Setrack is 67mm. Is it possible that Hornby could get away with a smaller track spacing because they didn't have any long coaches with large end overhangs? It is, of course, also possible that AnyRail is wrong... (I can't get on with XtrackCad at all - it seems wholly counterintuitive to me.) I agree that the current setrack 2nd radius is the same as Dublo's outer radius curves. I also agree with your description of the current Peco setrack curved points. Streamline doesn't use setrack radii. The nominal radii of the streamline curved points is clearly shown in the product description on Peco's web site: 1524mm and 762mm - both much larger radius than any setrack curve. The geometry of the current setrack curved points is as described by rue_d_etropal. There's no 3rd radius involved.

Oh, I know that they currently only do templates for streamline. I was just wondering whether they might have done them for setrack at some point in the past. (I should have emphasised the "ever" in my post.)

Have Peco ever offered templates for setrack? I always thought it was an OO industry standard, so they wouldn't need to. Though TBH I've never stopped to wonder which industry body was responsible for defining it. Certainly DOGA don't seem to have anything to do with it. Perhaps its origins are lost in the mists of time...

I had an ST-245 left-hand curved point on my last layout (before it got dismantled) and never had any problems at all with it. Everything from a Midland 1F to a Duchess ran through it without any trouble at all. That said, if I was using them in a 'ladder' formation, I would make very sure that they all were laid flat and true. Both curved roads in the ST-244 and ST-245 are nominally second radius. The inner road is all 2nd radius, diverging by 33.75° ie equivalent to 1 x ST-225 plus 1 x ST-227. The outer road is equivalent to an ST-203 short straight followed by an ST-225, so it only diverges 22.5°. This diagram is quite useful for understanding setrack geometry: http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/1999_1_106717291.html Most decent track planning applications will be able to include setrack components within a layout design that otherwise uses more relaxed track geometries such as streamline. I know that AnyRail does.

This will no doubt be an unpopular viewpoint but IMO this is a good reason for not having table seats in quiet coaches at all. Too many people seem to be unable to have a conversation at a civilised volume when seated across a table from each other. When the other 80% of the people in the coach are being quiet, it makes involuntary eavesdropping almost unavoidable. Noise-cancelling headphones can help a bit - but why should one have to use them to get a bit of peace and quiet in the quiet coach? Families of four seem to manage OK on actual airlines. Granted, those are usually three across but a family of four still ends up with an odd one out. I don't see much evidence of it being an unbearable burden for people. I think that very much depends on which airline you are flying with, and in which class. There didn't seem to be any significant size difference between the seat-back tables on my last Easyjet flight and my last journey on VTEC (both in June this year). That view is based on how precarious and cramped the accommodation said table afforded for my book/tablet/meal (depending on which one I wanted to have in front of me at any one time) appeared to be in each case.

I use the Money Saving Expert Cheap Energy Club to monitor when my fixed term deal is coming to an end, and to provide a list of recommended suppliers I could switch to. It even tracks the market and lets you know if you might be able to do better by switching out of your current deal early. I find the information presented comprehensive and sufficiently easy to understand to be able to make an adequately informed decision. I don't worry too much about the supplier's customer service: they're all much of a muchness in my experience to date. Anyway, it's not them I call to find out what's going on if the electricity goes off, which is what really matters IMO. Wrangles over accounts are pretty much business as usual for utility companies, I reckon. At least if you switch every twelve months the outgoing supplier pretty much has to get everything properly reconciled before signing off - and if the dispute does drag on, the old supplier isn't in a position to cut you off if you withhold payment.

Because BBC4 timeshares its bandwidth on the BBC A multiplex with CBeebies (the HD versions timeshare bandwidth on the COM 7 multiplex). Back in the bad old days when there were only two BBC channels, Wimbledon used to displace lunchtime and late afternoon children's programmes from BBC2 on to BBC1 (or maybe the other way round - it was along time ago and I can't remember precisely what used to get bumped where). Now that the kiddies have dedicated channels, disrupting those channels for sport (and thus, heaven forfend, 'forcing' parents and carers to actually pay some attention to their little square-eyed charges) would likely not be popular. Disrupting BBC 4's fairly specialised programming for sport would not be popular either. Well...kinda sorta. The BBC doesn't pay Freeview anything for bandwidth/capacity. Nor does anyone else: Freeview doesn't own any multiplexes, it's basically just a marketing body for digital terrestrial TV in the UK which the major participating broadcasters - BBC, ITV, Channel Four, Arqiva, Sony and (for hysterical historical reasons) Sky - fund purely for that purpose. The BBC has two multiplexes (BBC A and BBC B) gifted to it as part of its remit as the dedicated public service broadcaster (although IIRC the actual transmission of those multiplexes is effectively outsourced - I think to Arqiva, via a convoluted history including National Grid plc). The BBC definitely pays Arqiva for bandwidth on COM 7 for CBeebies HD and BBC FOUR HD because Arqiva owns that multiplex. But yes, the bottom line is that extending the hours of any of the BBC's channels would involve a cost which it cannot justify in its current straitened circumstances. However, the BBC is running six additional temporary red button channels for Wimbledon, to allow it to cover more courts simultaneously (it does something similar for the Olympics, and other major events including I think Glastonbury). It achieves this by juggling bandwidth with some of its minor TV channels and Freeview radio stations - and by running the red button channels on reduced bandwidth that wouldn't be acceptable for the mainstream channels. Outside of Wimbledon's playing hours the red button channels show highlights and I think sometimes even full replays of previous matches. The schedule clashes which cause the matches which they expect a lot of people to want to continue watching in real time to bounce between the main channels occur when there is a match overrunning - something that the BBC has no control over. The reasons behind the BBC's choices of which channels to bounce coverage to are their own, but I find it hard to believe that it's difficult for people in this day and age to lift a finger to their remote control to switch channels. AFAIK it's not in the BBC's remit to pander to people who want to timeshift record stuff. With the rise in popularity and audience coverage of iPlayer (which does include on demand playback of live coverage from Wimbledon) timeshift recording probably isn't as widely practised as it once was anyway.

Cruder is the word: the problem with the "screw a NEM Kadee on by the swallowtail" approach is that it prevents the body of the coupling from swinging side-to-side. NEM pockets have sideways swing built in to them - exemplified by the Hornby and Bachmann "fishtail" attachment for their NEM pockets. Non-NEM Kadees such as the whisker couplings swing side-to-side in the gear box. Without that sideways swing you are relying on the coupling head pivoting open to accommodate all the sideways displacement that arises on curves. This is not ideal: the coupling head is designed for longitudinal forces (that's why the coupling bodies are supposed to swing) and it's a quite delicate mechanism so exerting a force it's not designed for can compromise coupling reliability, or even in the worst case damage the mechanism. I'll admit that these potential issues are less serious if the curves on one's layout aren't trainset-tight, but even then I think this non-standard application of Kadees should really be reserved only for applications where there is no reasonably practical alternative. From memory, I only have two items of stock where I've had to resort to this approach - IIRC in both instances it's been on a loco's tender or front bogie/pony truck. IMO it works, most of the time, but it's not ideal.

With reference to the property currently identified as number 53 on Mc Kean Road: if you look closer at the Google Streetview, it turns out that those houses aren't actually as spacious as they appear in plan view eg on the map Melmerby posted. Although from above they look like semis, in fact there are four properties within each building. There are two front doors at the front of the building, with a central entryway between them. There are then two more 'front' doors, one at each side of the building. And no, those aren't back doors: each building does consist of four separately numbered properties - in the case of the one we're looking at, numbered 53 (right rear), 55 (right front), 57 (left front) and 59 (left rear). So although the 'garden' on the corner is noticeably big, the dwelling it 'belongs' to looks like it might actually be quite "compact and bijou". Or perhaps it was something like a communal drying green for all the 'front' houses in the row that don't have a rear garden of their own? Of course, as has been mentioned already, house numbers and even the arrangement of dwelling space within buildings could have changed in the intervening 80-100 years. That building arrangement reminds me somewhat of the Colony houses in Edinburgh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_houses, but split front/back rather than lower/upper.

No that is Harley Davidson I assume that is intended to be a joke at HD's expense? Or perhaps you're getting confused with HDT (Hayes Diversified Technologies) who build a diesel bike for the US Army (which could be compounded by the fact that Harley Davidson took over production of the Armstrong MT500 and MT350 for the British Army - though they weren't diesel powered). Horsetan is right, Royal Enfield did produce a diesel bike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_motorcycle#Royal_Enfield - I have a vague recollection that they even tried marketing them in the UK for a short time.

If I remember to when I'm washing up a milk carton, I save them for mixing paint, epoxy etc. I never realised that they could be my route to uncountable riches... The smaller ones that you get on juice cartons can also come in useful occasionally.

That's the one, yes. The houses on that stretch of Mc Kean Road are noticeably larger in plan than the ones on the section to the north, and semi-detached. They also have front gardens which (as attested to by John H) the ones on the northern terraces don't. The one on the corner has a larger garden than any of its the neighbours on the same side of the road. That suggests to me a rather "posher" residence than most of the rest in the area. Perhaps John H's ancestors were paying a visit to a rather more affluent neighbour, which could explain the smart clothes and jewellery. Maybe said neighbour was holding a summer garden party for their friends from nearby, or something like that? If we knew the number of that house then it might be possible to find out who had occupied it at around that time. UPDATE: It's number 53, as identified by Brigo earlier, and it's still there. The modern property with all the vehicles on the drive in the 2014 Streetview shot has been built in that extensive garden where I believe John H's ancestors were photographed. I suspect that the writing that some people have detected on the wall of the building to the left in the original photo may be the tail end of the street name sign for Broadwell Road - there appears to be some foliage obscuring the view of that building at the far left edge of the photo.

Looking at the Britain from Above view, and the 1916-1919 1:2,500 map on Old Maps, I reckon you're spot on. I believe that the fence that the group is standing in front of is the boundary of the garden to the house on the SW corner of the junction of Mc Kean Road and Broadwell Road.

The tradition in the majority of the West is for both wedding and engagement rings to be on the ring finger. The only reference in that article to the wedding or engagement ring going on the middle finger is in certain Jewish traditions. Of course some people are happy to ignore such conventions eg for the sake of comfort or convenience. Equally, some people choose to wear rings that don't signify engagement or marriage - but usually will avoid wearing such rings on the ring finger. Basically: I wouldn't regard that as being as strong an indication of the correct orientation of the photograph as the writing on the sign. Mind you, I can't for the life of me make that out! I think it would help if the OP could post a higher-resolution scan of the photo. Many of the details that people on this thread are claiming to see are invisible to me in what's been posted so far. For example, the fencing mentioned in the OP is just a mushy blur as far as I can see (to be fair, the OP did say that it is clearer in the original print, but even a half-decent flat bed scanner or multi-function printer/scanner should be able to resolve that kind of detail so that it is visible in a low-compression jpeg). I suspect that the original print isn't all that large (many amateur prints weren't even postcard size in those days, especially if cost was an issue) so a scan at a decent resolution shouldn't even be all that big in terms of bytes.

I reckon this one is closer to the Hyperloop concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_pneumatic_railway And possibly this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit Although of course Hyperloop isn't actually intended to be an atmospheric system in the sense that Samuda and Clegg's (as adopted by Brunel), Rammell's, Beach's and others of that era were. Hyperloop uses a linear motor for propulsion; the main reason for the evacuated tube is to allow high speeds with little or no air resistance.

I would have thought that eight whole wheels would have given the best ride quality. I'll get me coat...

Thanks for confirming that. Thanks again. However (i) I've already bought the GM relays (from Hattons, in the three packs, which works out at £4.60 per PCB mounted relay), and (ii) I've given up buying stuff direct from China. For a start, it usually takes ages for the goods to arrive. If they turn out to be faulty, or just the wrong thing, then: if you're lucky you get your money back no questions asked; if you're less lucky you get sent a replacement which takes a further age to arrive; and if you're really unlucky they want you to send to faulty/wrong item back. This goes for Chinese vendors on UK eBay and Amazon, as well as those who use AliExpress. This is not a criticism of the Chinese vendors, by the way - they are where they are, and I am where I am - but it is a vote in favour of using a UK distributor who keeps the goods in stock, can get them to me in a sensible time, and who is bound by the Consumer Contracts Regulations. But maybe that's just me.

Background: I'm using SEEP point motors on my electrofrog turnouts but I've decided to use Gaugemaster GM500 latching relays to do the frog switching, rather than rely on the rather crude switch built in to the SEEP motor. Since the GM500 can switch two circuits at once, I only need one per crossover so the incremental cost isn't too bad. I've now run in to a complication relating to my insulfrog single slip. I've decided that the slip is going to be fully isolated, with the power feed to the slip switched from adjacent power sections according to the setting of one of the turnouts that leads to the slip. I'd like to automate that switching. I'm not using common return wiring so switching power feeds requires a DPDT switch. Add in the SPDT switch for the frog switching on the turnout and that means that I'd need a three pole switch rather than just two. The solution I am considering is to use one of the switches on the GM500 to energise a normal (ie non-latching) DPDT relay such as this one to switch the power feed for the slip. I would use the uncontrolled 12v DC accessory output from my controller to energise the relay. The relay would be energised only when the turnout is reversed. The other switch on the GM500 would switch the frog polarity for the turnout as usual (there's no frog switching required on the slip as it's insulfrog). I realise that there are other ways to achieve the same result, some of which may be "better" according to certain criteria which might or might not be relevant to my use case. However, is there actually anything fundamentally wrong with the solution I'm considering?

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=149170 agrees with TheSignalEngineer