utt61

Awesome, and very moving. What a sight!

Staggeringly incompetent!

It would appear so:- https://www.bransonducks.com/

I'd be interested to know this. Given that most bayonets are double-edged, my initial assumption is that it would be illegal to have one about your person in public. Anyone know the score?

Civvy reg, so a preserved vehicle? I wonder where it is now...

If by "sand" you really do mean sand, then don't do it, it is illegal and dangerous for the reasons stated above. If your question is more generic and by "sand" you mean any safe solid abrasive blast media, then personally I would not do it. The blast media has a tendency to get into every nook and cranny and I personally feel that the risk of something highly abrasive getting into bearings etc is simply too great. I do know that others however seal up openings etc and seem to have trouble-free results, but that is not something I would risk. I am fortunate enough to have a wet-blast machine which produces virtually no abrasive dust, one of several advantages of wet blasting. Even so, it is not something I would consider..

That certainly doesn't look like any keying hammer that I have ever seen, and the shape makes it fundamentally unsuited to that task. A keying hammer has a long thin end in order to fit between the rail and chair, that headwould not fit. Having said that, I am sure that I have seen just such a hammer fairly recently but I can't remember where or when. Back on the subject of "sand blasting" please remember that it is both illegal and very foolish to blast with sand or any other medium containing more than 1% free silica. This is due to the high risk of contracting silicosis, a truly awful debilitating illness with no cure. It is prohibited under the COSHH Regulations, 1999. You must use proper, intended-for-the-purpose blast media. It is also highly advisable (essential in the workplace) to use an air-fed full face or full head mask or shield. Remember also that the paint you are blasting into airborne dust may contain lead and other evil health hazards. If you can get hold of one, a wet blast machine will give better results, is more versatile, much cleaner, and almost dust free (and therefore healthier) than a dry blaster. The downside is that typically a wet blast machine is around ten times the price of a dry blast machine. Blasting is a great timesaver and really useful technique, but you want to live long enough to enjoy the results of your endeavours.

I have a set fof use with my Defender (mats only, there are better options generally for securing them). They work well, but by heck they are heavy!

I've just had a quick tally-up round the barn and found the rather startling total of four Monkey winches and three of the scarcer Wallaby winches! Does this make me a bad person or just a weirdo? I may have to investigate remanufacturing the various springs used on these winches. Most other parts are easy enough to refurbish but the springs tend to fail and are all oddballs.

So the changes should only affect vehicles built on HGV chassis, but who will determine and how will the issue be managed of deciding if a vehicle is in scope or not? My Iron Fairy Six is Engineering Plant (it doesn't fit the Mobile Crane definition for various reasons even though it is a crane and is mobile) but to get it to an MOT would involve either a low-loader or about a day of driving a 12mph vehicle on A roads. It is not an HGV chassis, of course. Hopefully there will be no suggestion that a test will become needed.

A resurrection to a very old thread.... I was rather saddened to learn yesterday that the firm of Trewhella Brothers went into liquidation early in May 2017, bringing to an end another chapter of British engineering. I found it strangely reassuring that up until now it was possible to buy spares for the Monkey and Wallaby winches, along with the rope shorteners, fence wire strainers, and other top qualtiy Trewhella products. Sadly no more. So another British engineering name bites the dust. Very sad.

I'm loving this thread! Truly outstanding work!

Harrow School CCF had one of the 4x2 Series Ones in the early 1970s.

It would appear that a facebook account is needed in order to watch the video.

Thanks all, for some reason I can't view it on a desktop computer but can using my phone. Great little video, two together really make it special.

Sadly it seems that you can't view the video if you don't have a Facebook account. Shame.

A digital camera (especially a video camera) may show IR light and enable you to see what's working.

Rakeway has a first-class reputation for quality machining and manufacturing within the Landrover community, and it is interesting to learn that they will do work of this nature and small volume.

Some confusion here with Ransomes & Rapier products I suspect. The Centurian in the b&w photo has a Jones crane mounted on it, and the Chieftain has an NCK Rapier crane. The latter was introduced after R&R had been taken over by Newton Chambers Koehring and long after R&R had ceased manufacture of any sort of railway crane. Although there were some rail-mounted Jones cranes with superstructures similar to that on the Cent, these were nothing to do with R&R. It is unfortunate that so little of the crane is visible in the eBay photo, but I feel it is unlikely that the crane is a Rapier crane. It certainly isn't a Ransomes & Rapier crane.

Fantastic, you are indeed a star! I am in your debt, thank you!

This is a rather long shot, I know, but does anyone one here have any suggestions where I might be able to get a Hobourne Eaton charge pump to fit a Rolls C4NFL with a Twin Disc torque convertor. This is the pump used to pressurise the torque convertor with diesel, and is (I think) a failry standard fit across the Rolls C-series engines. I don't know what if any other engines might have been fitted with them. This is not actually for an MV but for a heritage rail application. The Rolls Royce and Twin Disc TC combo was widely used on shunting locos such as Sentinels, but my contacts in the Sentinel world don't have a spare pump. I thought perhaps a similar set-up might have been used on some heavy vehicles, and that it might therefore be worth asking here. Thanks.

How will a driverless car refuel itself? What happens if it gets a pucture? How will it cope with gated roads, user worked level crossings, etc? How will it know if a ford is passable? Can it pick up hitch-hikers? Ultimately what is the point in a driverless car?

My application does indeed include a dart gun.

Thanks for the informative replies. Based on my experiences recently, I would think that the ability to fire blanks, and an allocation of blanks on your FAC might help your case. I could foresee an argument that if you never want to fire any ammunition you don't need the piece to be fireable. It is a strange business!

Out of interest and not particularly connected with the OP's interesting issues, can anyone (probably with an FAC for an artillery piece) provide an insight to the following. I am in the process of obtaining an FAC (hopefully now just waiting for it to arrive) and have had "the interview" etc., so I am familiar with the strange processes involved. The local FEO told me that in order to be granted an FAC you must show that you have a legitimate reason for needing one, and in order to keep it and renew it in due course you must be able to show that you use it. The reasoning behind this, the FEO explained, was that if you don't actually ever use the firearm you cannot actually need it. Logical in a way, I suppose. I questioned this because whilst I can demonstrate "need" (in my case zoological - the swift humane destruction of escaped dangerous animals if recapture is not possible) it is to be hoped that I will never be able to demonstrate "use" (no escapes = no shootings). The FEO conceded that in specific circumstances there would be exceptions to the "no use = no need" reasoning. This however got me thinking about "need" and "use" for an artillery piece. Supposing that the local FEO is right and that this is how Police throughout the land think, what legitimate need can be cited for a private citizen to have a live-firing artillery piece, and how do you demonstrate "use"? I guess that walking into the local gunsmith to buy 105 AP shells isn't an option! I am not playing devil's advocate but am genuinely interested and would appreciate views. If it is considered more apprioriate please feel free to PM if a public forum is not appropriate.