N.O.S.

If you click on Mk1 (another single-engined hull), this shows yet another style of superstructure, pictures of which have been associated with info on Lady Syb. The 26 definitely pins it to a Mk2 though, and you should be able to confirm by evidence from the old superstructure.

Sharon - if you click on Mk2 in the link above, and then click Specification, you will see there were just two built - Nos 25 and 26. Nos 27 - 31 were Mk3. Mk3 had two engines, Mk2 had one so ties up with your single engined hull. Tony

Aha - difference in superstructure may be Mk 2 v Mk3 - see here: http://www.rafboats.co.uk/pin56menu.html

Your link shows a different class of vessel - I think it shows a number 26XX with the XX being covered by grime. The attached image shows what I believe she looked like during the war (there is another image showing slightly altered superstructure - possibly altered postwar?). EDIT: 17 is in fact a Mk1 vessel - superstructure has minor differences to 26 (Mk2). I'm posting this so that any members who are knowledgeable on these might be able to assist you better. Well done for saving her!

Is this level of support by MVers even necessary? I don't know enough about what resources are available to the organiser at the Hop Farm - if he has the use of a v.large 4x4 tractor or similar then presumably towing could routinely be handled 'in house', leaving only very occasional extreme conditions when big MV help might be required?

Thinking about the mud issue - If using trailer type units flushing into a common tank as ealrymb suggests, these can be emptied with standard truck vacuum tankers. So in a well-thought out and well-executed 'facilities management plan', the only uncertainty is the weather. In the event that rain caused access issues for the tankers, would there be enough willing helpers with big trucks (Explorers/WLFs) / tracked machines who might be prepared to tow the road tankers in and out from the hard surfaced roadways if necessary? It probably wouldn't be more than once / twice a day and then only of course if conditions are slippery. Towing would not be a problem for the road tankers if it is simply a traction issue on slippery surfaces - however deep ruts might render this solution unacceptable due to risk of damaging the trucks. I know, I know - 'liability issues', 'why should we tow when we're paying for the service'.....

Agreed - the only one I visited (on Thursday morning) certainly had evidence of a recent explosion inside :n00b: We were chatting with a tank collector (Rod) and his wife visiting from Australia while waiting in the line - whatever would they have thought had they needed to use them...... So with thoughts of constructive comments / ideas, try this one and the accompanying reasoning for size: The main concern seems to be keeping an adequate number of units - of acceptable design and suitably located - clean and regularly emptied. However the site does not lend itself to ease of access to remote groups of toilets due to the potential for roadways to become impassable by road-going tankers should the dreaded Beltring sticky strike hard. So a contractor looking to offer a service will have to factor in possible extra costs to reach units if roadways deteriorate. OK this can of course be overcome (at great expense) by providing off-road emptiers to shuttle between groupings and road-going tankers. But what if the organiser could guarantee a satisfactory number of units well maintained, albeit perhaps a bit further away than folk might ideally like, but located to ensure access by cleaning vehicles? This way the cost can be kept to a minimum by using larger tankers, more efficient cleaning regimes, and regular servicing can be ensured without any excuse from the contractor that conditions prevented access at the critical time. This would minimise cost to organiser, and guarantee users a queue-free clean facility - at the cost to users of having to walk further / scrounge a lift on a Sherman to get to them. Would that be too much of a compromise to make for a workable solution? Also give some consideration to providing a few individual facilities for those with mobility issues like .303fan who struggle to get around! Actually this is pretty much just what earlymb is suggesting in his post above!

Yes Ron I meant Sean. I certainly do not suggest you are making up facts, I was thinking more in terms of taking on the hapless task of defending the indefensible! The situation will not improve if shortcomings are not acknowledged and addressed. Simply providing more substandard units and failing to empty them regularly is hardly a proper solution. But then again people will put up with a lot to enjoy the show - to a point.

Hey Ron - did you enjoy your Shaun (edit: Sean) Spicer moment? :cool2:

Has anyone received a positive response from the chap running W&P following polite, constructive feedback on what doesn't suit and what improvements might attract them back or encourage even more to attend? I'm wondering if he has any intention of engaging with the MV movement with the aim of making his ideas for improvements available so that we might know what to expect for the next show? If he can offer some indication that he will work on these issues then who knows - numbers of participants, traders and public may improve next year, to everyones' benefit :thumbsup:

Well - you well and truly blew that, didn't you? :rofl::rofl:

:-D Only the organiser can do something about that.

It is very good of you to offer to act as an intermediary, Ron. Some points to consider: 1. For most I would imagine there is no happy medium - it is either acceptable or unacceptable. A really basic unit, if clean and stocked with paper, is acceptable - a filthy overflowing luxury unit even with a built-in TV is unacceptable. 2. The volume carted off site will be the same, whether it is from a small number of units frequently emptied or a large number emptied occasionally. 3. I for one would prefer to walk further, through mud if necessary, to use a clean facility. 4. Fewer units increases risk of queuing. 5. Not spending enough to get it right risks alienating the stars of the show. 6. I currently have no confidence it will be sorted by the next show.

Quality images! Is the tracked farm trailer based on an aircraft recovery dolly?

And the uber rare DT971 6x4 tractor unit on the approaching tank transporter.

I guessed the weather forecast / field conditions might have been a big factor. Just trying to see it from the organiser's view (not really sure why).

Agree with your post Paul - however in the case of Saturday finish, wasn't the point that most folk cleared off Sunday during the day thereby leaving a bare show for visitors? So by finishing Saturday, maybe the organiser was hoping that folk would stay for the whole day and night, then clear off at their leisure Sunday without upsetting any visitors on the Saturday? Why ever did folk clear off on Saturday (other than maybe a fear of wet weather)? If all campers and stalls stayed for the day and night everyone is happy - visitors get to see the show in its entirety and everyone gets another social evening. Sunday can then be a leisurely departure with organised towing through mud if necessary and the day to get back. If I was a MOP visitor Saturday I'd be well hacked off. As it was I asked a camper to get a spare part which I forgot on Thursday from a stall holder on Saturday - but the dealer was all packed up and ready to go, so no chance. I'm pretty annoyed with the organiser's apparent attitude on facilities (see Rambo's post above) but for goodness sake he's taken on board that folk want to get away Sunday - now it seems they want to get away on Saturday! Why cut short your enjoyment of the gathering by a day unless you really don't want to be there? What start and finish day would suit most people?

I think the toilets might have been an attempt at a cheap solution. If so, it seems to have backfired spectacularly :-D As a small party of MOP day trippers on Thursday, and having set off at 05.15 to be amongst the first 100 entrants onto the site at 9.00, we were kind of expecting a quick visit to the first public facilities at hand (through entrance, over concrete bridge and immediately on left) to be a relatively pleasant one. Oh come on - you have to be optimistic! Anyway, the sight greeting me - and others investigating adjacent units at the same time - was more akin to the result of a Star Trek transporter malfunction than a ready-for-use facility, and of course no paper (fortunately I had anticipated this and prepared a back-up plan which did not involve the use of a £50 note). I'm sure some of the public visitors were horrified. My point? It doesn't matter what else the organiser achieved (btw site staff/marshalls were great) - if he cannot organise to at the very least have clean ready-for-use public facilities by the time the site opens each day, he has failed both public and campers. It doesn't matter if the organiser gave specific instructions to the contractor to ensure facilities were kept in usable condition and that it is in fact the contractor who has let him down big time, it is the organiser who has failed both public and campers. Did it spoil my day out? Of course not! Enthusiasm and friendship within the MV hobby far outweighs that. There was mention of an expert / professional advisor on portable toilet provision who came up with a recommended quantity of units? FFS - I'm sure those with working knowledge of this unique event can work out for themselves better than any expert what is required - but unless WPR spends the money to provide it then the situation will not improve. Is the organiser determined enough to do and pay what it takes to crack this issue for the next show? Whoever would not be prepared to pay a fair bit more to cover whatever it costs to ensure decent facilities when staying at this event? To sum it up bluntly: Never mind about organising a 'p!ss-up in a brewery', on this occasion it seems WPR could not even organise for me to have a xxxx in a xxxxxx :rotfl: P.S. What really annoys me is that I was so incensed that I too have got sucked into commenting about the W&P toilets :angry

Priceless, thanks for posting! An interesting take on immediate post-war surplus and the new MV owners. Strangely it appears on your post as upside down, but when I saved it (I was going to rotate it) it saved the right way up :nut:

Electric heating elements in boiler, fed from 25KV overhead line (transformer in firebox space). Rotating cassettes of josticks within smokebox to create synthetic smoke. Piece of cake. Meanwhile, not much point in stocking up with too many GMC oil filters at W&P I guess........

John - 1956 era FV12101 etc Constructor :cool2:

Sorry - I meant were you aware of any similar valve on the Militant system! Yes, it was one of those front changeover (shuttle) valves causing the pressure build-up on the line feeding the Constructor rear brake chambers - I can't imagine the Militant system is that different. We'll have to wait for 6x6 to put his toys away after the show before any further online diagnostics.

Do you mean a socket for a 12V inspection light? :-D :n00b: :saluting:

So is there an equivalent to the Constructor's 'shuttle valve' somewhere in there between the palm coupling and this relay valve, Mike, which might be the culprit? Tony

Thanks for the description. Similar issues with a Constructor, where a relay (shuttle) valve, fitted between brake application valve and brake cylinders, and with a line to the palm coupling would sometimes let air through to service brake lines, often after running for 10 minutes or so. What happens is that air pressure gradually builds up in the line to the palm coupling - when it equalises, the shuttle valve thinks that it has received a signal to apply brakes and opens up the line to service brakes, effectively bypassing the foot valve. The cause is usually attributable to blocking up of a tiny bleed hole in the face of the palm coupling blanking plate (paint often being the culprit). It allows any slight leak of air into the service line (from whatever valve) to disperse instead of gradually building up. I wonder if your Militant relay valve is doing a similar job, in that it responds to signal pressure from a brake line coupling from a remote vehicle and feeds / directs the vehicle's own air supply to brake lines / through line to service coupling? Suggest you try removing any blanking plates from the couplings and see if that cures it. If not I'm officially flummoxed! I guess this bleed hole prevents minor valve leaks becoming a problem, but maybe you have a more serious leak from another valve somewhere in the service lines? In which case it has to be a valve or device which has both supply and service line connections.