Jump to content

Noel7

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Noel7

  1. It's described as built 1949/50 and ex-army. It's certainly green [apart from the wheels] and the build date is OK for an FT35, but the only army Clansman I am aware of was the 1951 FT103N 6x4. Just out of curiosity, can anyone enlighten me, please? 

  2. To amplify the previous response a little, the army allocated separate number series for vehicles in existence when the 1949 series started and those ordered thereafter. The RAF did not; it allocated the second letter [the first was always A until much later] dependent on the purpose of the vehicle. The very low number suggests the vehicle was in existence before 1949; in fact, so far as I know, the K2 ambulance was not produced after 1945.

  3. I'm no expert, but I don't think that a party wall agreement is actually altogether relevant. The argument  is about access. When your seller [I presume it is the same person as is selling to you?] sold land to the builder, that sale agreement should have included a full specification of what rights of access the owner of the remaining land had over the land then sold. These rights would then be binding on all subsequent owners of both areas of land. The important question is did that sale agreement provide for access by motor vehicles, and, if so, what sort? If, just for example, it restricted access to private cars, it won't matter whether your lorry is a commercial vehicle or not, you would not have the right of access with it. [Don't expect the builder to know the details, as he is not likely to be a legal expert!] Your solicitors should be able to explain before you buy the property what your rights of access actually would be if you do buy; if they can't, keep asking until they do. As utt61 implied, the discussion won't go anywhere until you know what the legal situation is.

  4. It isn't just the size of the trailers; the 3 ton and 6 ton couplings are different and not compatible, although similar in appearance. Couplings designed by other manufacturers but intended to work with Scammell couplings have the same issue over rating, but may differ from Scammell's versions in appearance because of the need to avoid problems over Scammell patents. Just to compound the issue, there were a few 6 ton MHs with 3 ton couplings. 

  5. The registration is Dorset, late war or just post-war. Robert Thorne still exist, and are timber merchants in southern Dorset, having been so engaged since the 1880s. I  would suggest that the photo is probably of a nice new heavyweight pole trailer they bought circa 1945, as part of their business included supply of round timber, and nothing to do with the army.

  6. According to AEC Matador by Steve Richards, there were two batches of ACVs based on the Matador. The first batch had census numbers in the series L4426xxx and L4427xxx. The second batch was numbered F89104 to F89313 and was built on a January 1942 contract. F indicated an armoured scout car or armoured car.

  7. Letter pairs starting with R [apart from RN] went out of use, so far as I know, part way through RH in the early 1950s. I agree it looks like a W, but the clerk that wrote it out would have been doing so from a hand-written record, so I wonder if he or she mis-read RN as RW. I suggest this because the RN definitely did use minivans, and I'm not sure that the army did. Normally there would be some sort of official brass plate on the vehicle giving the number. If still present it may take some finding [in the engine bay perhaps?], but it would answer the question.

  8. Dodge and Chevrolet trucks were used extensively by the British and Commonwealth forces in WW2, but these were produced in Canada, both in CMP form and as modified civilian types, so their presence is not necessarily a sign of US involvement. The LRDG was a regular user of the Chevrolets. The Grant tank appeared in North Africa in May 1942, but again in British service.

  9. 3 hours ago, Rootes75 said:

    I note that our county museum in Taunton has the Somerset Light Infantry museum incorporated and they have an awful lot of Medals.

    I presume that most of them are on loan.

    Kevin

    No way of telling. Many families are not that interested in keeping or selling the medals [which are often not particularly collectable anyway], so are quite happy to donate them. In my case they are my grandfather's, and I have chosen to loan them for the moment, along with what survive of his service records, as did my father originally, but there are no more descendants to take them, so I'll probably donate them sooner or later.

     

    2 hours ago, wally dugan said:

    when a museum wishes to dispose of items they must follow the guide lines which clearly state they must contact  people and were applicable  other groups including all such as the people who gifted the items to see what there wishes are 

    Unless there is a contract relating to the donation which says otherwise [like, for instance, that the donor has to be offered a chance to buy the items back before they are offered to someone else], this is just a courtesy to the donors and breach of a code of practice, so far as I know, has no sanctions attached in such circumstances generally, sadly. If the item is loaned to someone or some organisation, however, it is not their property and selling it without the owner's knowledge and permission will probably give the owner the right to take legal action against them, and possibly anyone acting on their behalf and also the buyer [even if he was not aware of the situation]. It may also involve them in criminal proceedings. As with all legal matters, much depends on circumstances.

     

  10. Legally speaking there is a big difference between a loan and a gift. The latter becomes the property of the recipient [the museum in this case] and they can dispose of it when and how they choose to do so, for any reason or none, and without reference to the donor. A loaned item, in theory, cannot be disposed of at all, as it is not the property of the museum, and any buyer will get no legal title to it [whether they realise it or not] as the museum did not hold legal title. In practice, if the person that loaned it, or their heirs, cannot be found, then disposal may become possible after reasonable attempts have been made to find them, but the situation is not straightforward. Of course, if there is no evidence it was a loan, rather than a donation, then making a legal case for the return of the property may well be somewhere between very difficult and impossible.

    I'm not a lawyer, but have family medals on loan to a regimental museum; under their procedures the loan has to be renewed every three years, so lots of paperwork for evidence...

  11. I know nothing about Arduinos, but a little about programming logic, so I'll offer a solution, with apologies in advance if I've misread the logic.

    I think the problem is in 

    if
    (SigInState ==LOW && OldSigInState ==HIGH)      //Test if new pulse has come in                                               {called TEST 1}
         {
         (NewMillis = millis() );                   //NewMillis to equal current millis.
         (OldSigInState = SigInState );             //OldSigState is reset.
         }
     if
    (SigInState ==HIGH && OldSigInState == LOW)     //Tests if pulse has ended                                                          {called TEST 2}

    I assume that the loop in which these tests are written executes multiple times for each burst, with TEST 1 and TEST 2 being evaluated on each execution. If so, NewMillis is reset each time the loop executes [as TEST 1 will always succeed until the end of the burst] and will always end with the same value. I would suggest that you need a flag of some sort, set to 0, and a further test nested within TEST 1 which tests the flag and only executes the two statements if the flag = 0, and then sets flag = 1. This will stop NewMillis being updated thereafter. A statement will then be needed within TEST 2 setting the flag back to 0.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

    • Like 1
  17. 14 hours ago, Chris Hall said:

    do you know where the photo of the Wellingtons was taken? It looks like they are about to be inspected as each aircraft has its air or ground crew at the front stood at ease. And all the props are set with the 3rd blade pointing up.

    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" 

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 1 hour ago, Ron said:

    I'd still like to prove the guys wrong who claim the registration CMM is 1952!!!  Ron

    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. 

     

  21. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...