Noel7

88YW52, 91YW18 and 91YW56 were K6 gantries, so 91YW17 is highly likely to be a K6 and probably a gantry. You could try the RLC archive to see if they have a record card for this VRN. There may be a charge for this.

Some YW were apparently not used; of those that were, I know of Bedford QLD GS, Bedford OY and Austin K6 3 ton gantry. However, I have a big gap in the middle, and another at the end, which I can't account for. Hopefully someone else may be able provide more info.

This body is consistent with that of a 1900 Nottingham Corporation Tramways double decker, according to the illustration in Wikipedia.

To drive a motor vehicle anywhere in a Road Traffic Area [not just public roads, so car parks, railway premises, etc.] in the UK you must comply with the requirement to be licenced, taxed and insured, and display a current set of registration plates applicable to the vehicle. Current plates issued by foreign states are accepted for a restricted period after entry to this country, so temporary visitors on such plates are OK [and they do not have to look like UK plates], but after that the vehicle must be registered in the UK.

German WW2 military plates are not current, and therefore not legal. Displaying one, rather than a current UK plate, in an RTA area would probably invalidate your insurance as well. One reason for registration is so that the authorities can trace the registered keeper in case of accidents, criminal activity, and so on. As usual, there are exceptions, but none that are relevant here, so far as I know.  Outside RTA areas these rules don't apply, of course.

Collecting used bus tickets on exit in the way the railways did wasn't a practical proposition with a bus full of people getting on and off in the rush hour. The tickets had serial numbers and the office would record which conductor had which numbers for each value ticket and the conductor would have to complete waybills at each terminus, which the office would check against unused tickets returned and money handed in [and the conductor would have to make up any shortfall]. Tickets would be manually clipped or punched on issue [no machines in the early days], and the conductor  shown a ticket issued earlier would know it wasn't from his batch, so both office and conductor had checks against fraud.

What neither wanted was unused tickets going absent. Given its location on the platform the only potential user, officially at least, was the conductor, so I would suggest that each conductor had a padlock and key issued to him, and kept his stock of spare tickets locked in the box.

C E & S are C Eastgate and Sons. An internet search engine will produce quite a few hits on the name, some for this style of lamp.

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? 

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.

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.

According to the Legacy Vehicles website it's the former 55BD02, now GSK499.

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. 

Looking at the badges, I think they may be Canadians?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice to see such camera-shy vehicles as the FT15N and the Commer Q2. I think the bike is a Matchless G3.

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