Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Noel7

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Model railways, circa 1960
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The final 7 of 7257367 looks as though it may have been struck over a different, much larger, 7, presumably part of the earlier number. There is also what may be an F [or perhaps a 5] the other side of the 6, if that is what it actually is. It doesn't really look consistent in shape and size with the 3 and the 5 to me.
  2. UK heritage railways mostly use vacuum brake in normal service, but the Berlin coach will be air brake, and the two are not compatible, so that's another potential problem. Photographs suggest that there is a considerable amount of external body damage, and since the coach has been standing for up to 20 years, there is likely to be significant mechanical damage as well. Restoration could be rather expensive, especially since it is very unlikely that any parts could be sourced within the UK.
  3. As a former insurance broking technician I would want clarification on what they mean by "officially sanctioned" [by whom?] which appears to apply to all the areas specified, not just the show arenas; it strikes me as poor drafting not to do this, unless, of course, it's elsewhere in the wording.
  4. Initially the 1949 system used the same practice as the previous census number system, with the series from 00RA01 used for rebuilt vehicles [presumably starting with "R" to show a rebuild]. However, 'rebuild' numbers ceased to be allocated sometime in 1952, having used numbers, so far as I can tell, up to about two thirds of the way through xxRHxx. Thereafter any rebuilt vehicles continued to carry whatever number was on the data plate and frame, whatever the origin of the rest of the parts used. My understanding is that these rebuilt numbers were issued for rebuilds under contracts issued from 1949 onwards, and that vehicles with census numbers indicating an earlier rebuild were renumbered into the range from 00YA01 onwards allocated to existing vehicles.
  5. Nice to see such camera-shy vehicles as the FT15N and the Commer Q2. I think the bike is a Matchless G3.
  6. Noel7


    Steve Richards' book "AEC Matador" states that 167 were built with the petrol engine, presumably in addition to the 17 conversions in 1940 for the Norwegian campaign. Nick Abbott's is not unique in lasting until as late as 1959/60 still with a petrol engine
  7. Wikipedia's entry on the Wellington has the same photo and identifies the aircraft as being from the batch of 30 Mark 1s obtained pre-war by the RNZAF, transferred to the RAF 8/1939, and used by 75 squadron. Wikimedia Commons identifies the location as RAF Stradishall 10/7/1939 "Ready to fly to Brussells and Paris as a show of strength from the RAF" and then gives the date as "September or August 1939"
  8. Mind you, MSN weren't doing that much better - their headline refers to a 'battleship', and their text to a 'battlecruiser'. The latter would be correct for the WW2 version, but the WW1 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were armoured cruisers [the nearest WW2 equivalent being a heavy cruiser]. Definitely no match for Invincible and Inflexible, which really were battlecruisers.
  9. I am very reluctant to disagree with you, Wally, but while the range you quote does, according to the evidence I have, indeed have Bedford QLDs at the beginning and the end, there are a lot of assorted other [non-Bedford] types in between. The nearest number I have identified is 50RB96, which was apparently a Morris C8 FAT, for example. I am not suggesting that this means that the data plate shown comes from a C8, as rebuilt batches sometimes seem to have been quite small.
  10. I suspect that this date has come from the Old Classic Car website lists of VRNs. That for "MM" shows AMMnnn as running from 10/1933 and nnnAMM from 11/1953, which makes sense, as the 'letter first' series up to ZMM999 would normally be used up before the 'number first' series was started. However, the start date for the BMMnnn series is shown as 6/1952, and for the CMMnnn series as 7/1952, which do not fit the pattern. DMMnnn is shown as starting in 4/1936, and this and subsequent series are as expected. London had a lot of number series, and registration authorities sometimes did odd things, but I think that the date for BMMnnn and CMMnnn are probably errors. The other entries in the list suggest that BMMnnn should start about 8/1934 and CMMnnn about 6/1935. The list for the "MG" series runs from 3/1930 to 3/1949. All of this is dependent on the lists as published, and my assumption that the "MM" list has the errors identified, but I hope it helps.
  11. If you can get access to a copy of "Bedford to Berlin and Beyond QL:The Forces Favourite 4x4", pages 83-4 give a basic sequence for dismantling airportable QLD GS and QLW. It runs to 24 separate operations, but no with detail on how they are carried out, so I don't know how much it will help. It also adds that "some additional tasks were required for the tipper". It does, as Retriever indicated, involve castors being fitted.
  12. Wally, 98RC23 is possibly an error in the RQMS ledger. According to your post 14/4/2016 in thread 27014 "Post war sales catalogues" this is in a range allocated to Bedford QL TCVs, which is also as shown in Appendix 2 of the book 'Bedford to Berlin and beyond - Bedford QL: The Forces Favourite 4x4'. My understanding is that rebuild VRN ranges were allocated when the rebuild contract was issued, so other vehicle types in the range are presumably not likely? I have identified 92RC98 as a K6 gantry, and 'Bedford to Berlin' Appendix 2 shows a Bedford QL range starting at 93RC60, which is the next number I have, so could 98RC23 actually have been 93RC23?
  13. I don't understand this. Unless I'm missing something [always possible 😊] I think your source has crossed wires here.
  14. What are the propellers made of? Ship propellers are usually a copper alloy such as brass, bronze or gunmetal, which doesn't need painting.
  15. Shame the nose of the aircraft is not visible, which would have made the identification so much easier! However, what is visible is consistent with a Blenheim. The turret confused me, as it was not the type I was expecting to see, but some research on the internet indicated that late production Mark IVs had a lower profile Bristol twin Browning turret [different to that of the Mark V], so I think this is what the photo shows.
  • Create New...