utt61

(b) above is interesting, as over the years I have several times had errors on the V5 which DVLA has been strangely reluctant to correct, for example, a green SAAB 99 which mysteriously DVLC (at the time) insisted was red and seemed incapable of correcting!

If I right click on a photo link and select "open in new tab" this is I get the error message shown below. I don't know if this is of any diagnostic use to Those Who Know How This Stuff Works, it means little to me. This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below. <Error> <Code>AccessDenied</Code> <Message>Access Denied</Message> <RequestId>AE190A16543DDDA9</RequestId> <HostId>COwLn24GyrKhHk06v2nPwfs6P0akwgXbjBXYykCeSTKL/yYIvzhsJYxza0apJ03zLW99DgbqUZY=</HostId> </Error>

I'm glad you asked this because I was about to ask the same question. I have the same problem with Windows 10 laptop, also Android tablet and phones. At least I know it's not just me.

Still hoping for updates to this very interesting and impressive overhaul!

Very interesting, thank you for answering your own question!

I'm sorry if my post offended you (which is strongly suggested by the tone of you post) but based on what can be seen from the OP's photo, and based on the trajectory of the top of my own (manual) door, I stand by my opinion. There is no way that that link requires an offset of that size at the door end. A quick diversion to YouTube to watch videos of similar doors in operation fully supports this view.

Looking at the photo again and being mindful of this suggestion, I am inclined to think that the link has been fitted the wrong way round anyway. The shape as fitted makes no sense, if flipped as per Mr Herbert's suggestion it would, I suspect, fit perfectly.

Looking at what is visible in your photo, I don't see any reason why the bend in the link need to be so pronounced. I would have thought that a straight link (or a very nearly straight link) with the same hole centres would work just as well. I would operate the door and watch the trajectory of the top end of the door, and if nothing enters the area inside the bend of the link, make up and fit a straight one.

It's been a long time since this excellent thread saw any action, so I thought I would try to wake it up by posting a link to something I have only just stumbled across, the new Liebherr G-BKF armoured rescue crane. A seriously impressive tool, I now know what I would do if I won the lottery!

Can I ask when you say "big", how big? Also whereabouts (in general terms) in the country are you? Many thanks.

Is it possible that the letters "AFK" visible in the rear view are the last three characters of a "123ABC" format civvy registration painted on the tailboard? It looks to me possible that the same marking appears on the FOS wing.

I believe the LR Series One Club has brand new ones (thermostat housings) available.

What I find remarkable by modern standards, and also rather nostalgic, is that virtually all the vehicles are British. I spotted only about a dozen cars and not a single commercial vehicle of foreign manufacture.

Not just electrical, but fibre too. Hundreds of kilometres, I believe.

The Wallaby is a great winch (for some reason I cannot explain I seem to have three in my winch collection) and I believe was was supplied as CES for some military recovery vehicles. I would hope that someone sees this post and wants it. Trewhella winches of any kind are fairly scarce now, and although the original Monkey Winch comes up from time to time, Wallabys are much rarer. For those who don't know, they are also generally more useful since it is at least possible to lift one without being abnormally strong! They really are very good winches indeed.

The "Ton" class minesweepers had three Napier Deltic engines, as I recall one for each shaft and a third for generating electricity. It was a long time ago but I can remember starting one on HMS Alfriston using the cartridge start system, the only time I have ever used this type of starter.

You can always put a sock over the blues when on the road, that way you avoid any possible problem (it isn't an offence to have them, just to let them be seen as things that resemble blue lights lit or not). Realistically are you ever going to have a legitimate use to use them on the road? I think not. Do you ever actually anticipate being called upon to fight a fire with your GG? I doubt it, but if you are, just leave the sock off.

Hmm, good luck with your interpretation of the law surrounding "blues and twos". The only pitfall I can see is that you have concluded that a vehicle specifically built for the purpose of firefighting is the same thing as a vehicle used for "fire brigade purposes", when it is of course nothing of the kind. You will, I think, find that the term "fire brigades" is now considered to have been redefined to "fire and rescue authorities" (ref. the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004), although this makes little difference in this case, it merely acknowledges that there is no longer such a thing as a "fire brigade". The key point is that to comply with the requirement of being used for fire brigade (or fire and rescue authority) purposes, the vehicle must be under the direction and engaged upon business of a fire brigade (or fire and rescue authority). It is, I suppose, possible that if you were a retained firefighter and you happened to be using you GG in connection with the fighting of a fire, you might have a leg upon which to stand. If however you are a member of the general public, driving a fine restored GG for an afternoon jolly or to or from a rally field, then I can see no conceivable way that you can make this claim. If this interpretation is correct, then sadly, since your entire argument is predicated upon your definition, the rest of your justification rather collapses. For the record I am no more a lawyer than you, and this is merely a counter-view to yours, It may be wrong, but it is, however, a widely held view. I did also several decades ago work with a cave rescue organisation which operated an ambulance, and do have experience of the use of blues and twos from that time and in that arena (in that case the vehicle was registered as an ambulance and could be run with lights and sirens, but could not exceed any speed limits nor ignore any traffic regulations since the drivers were not appropriately trained). Please do let us know how you get on when (or if) you first get "pulled" for having something that resembles a blue light whether illuminated or not. Great restoration, by the way, and it should be a beauty when you've finished.

I am totally happy to accept this, although I have however seen dates expressed in the (anachronistic) form of standard and Roman numerals in several applications from around the turn of the 20C, hence my erroneous conclusion. I also had failed to appreciate the " over the numbers, mistaking them for witness marks, however the improbability of identical marks happening by chance over both numbers does seem so remote as to be absurd.

FWIW, my feeling would be that it is more like to be a date given the era from which it originates. That layout was not uncommon then. Does 21/10/14 seem plausible? Do "21" and "18" bear any resemblance to the dimensions of the prop?

I'm not sure what the largest pinnace would have been, but Steam Pinnace 199, now in the National Historic Ships collection, was a 50 footer, and is believed to have been carried on "super-dreadnought" HMS Monarch. https://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/register/40/steam-pinnace-199 Sadly I can offer absolutely no help I this case, but I look forward hopefully to reading more in this thread.

Brian, welcome, and thank you for such a helpful first post! The news that spares may once again become available is very encouraging and welcome.

At least the absence of front brakes is authentic for a pre-1923 Rolls-Royce. I'm told that at the time RR considered front brakes to be dangerous things since they enabled the driver to lock the front wheels!

It's been a very long time since this thread saw any action, but since the posts I made above I now believe that the rear tractor involved at Hixon was one of the Anderson-cabbed DT's, since photos have come to light which suggest the Anderson silhouette rather than the small cab silhouette. I think that this narrows it down to one of three tractors, but I still would be interested in knowing which it was if anyone knows.

The protoype MH-8875 tractor, the unit used for the tank transporter bid, went via GEC Alsthom to ALE where it has given great service of many years. I believe that it has now been retired. The new batch of six ALE Trojan tractor units were designed and built by ALE in-house at Hixon, Staffordshire. ALE bought six French Army surplus Unipower 8800 units with a view to upgrading them, but after assessing their suitability and condition decided to start from scratch (although it is rumoured that there are some parts of the ex-French units in the Trojans). The design is in some ways an evolution of the MH-8875 and builds on the lessons learned from years of operating that pioneer unit, and is in many ways probably the vehicle Unipower would have built if the firm had survived. The Trojan 8870 is the most powerful (and cleanest) prime mover ever to operate on British roads, and is the first such vehicle to have full CANbus-based multiple unit operation allowing the lead tractor to operate everything but the steering on helper units. A remarkable and very impressive example of great British engineering!