utt61

Since the MOT test now includes a check of number plates (see http://www.mottest.net/mot/registration-number-plates) how can an unregistered vehicle which consequently displays no number plates ever pass the MOT?

To be honest I still have trouble regarding the "through-deck cruisers" as carriers. If I had the magic wand of preservation I would have saved a "proper" carrier.

Just finished reading Derrick Patrick's "Fetch Felix". A very interesting read, especially if you remember "the troubles". How times change!

Unless it's had a repaint and gained the box on the back, that's not the one I was thinking of! How many of these are there out there?!

If there is a good side to this story it is that the local news the other evening reported that following the break-in and damage there has been a huge influx of support and help from the local community to the museum to get it back together and ready for opening. They do say that there's no such thing as bad publicity, and the story has certainly raised the profile of the museum. I also have no doubt that there will be those in the local community who know exactly who committed the break in and they will be caught; there does seem to be an overwhelming revulsion at their cowardly, desipcable, and probably drug-fueled actions.

I remember seeing that one many times, not only at Bovvy but also I think at the GDSF. It was as I recall either an AWD conversion or possibly a Universal Power Drives (Unipower) conversion, of a Thames Trader of course. I am fairly sure that it belonged to someone from the Wareham area.

If you're wet blasting it is is essential to use an acid wash prior to priming. The technique I have seen used to great effect is to wet blast, dry thoroughly, brush on a dilute phosphoric acid wash (which is designed for the purpose and easily obtained) and allow to dry, then scotchbrite lightly until grey, then prime and paint. This gives an adhesion which exceeds marine standards. It sounds a lot of work, but is actually less work (and healthier) than needlegunning. The acid wash converts the Fe2O3 (rust) to FeO which is very stable and very hard (which is exactly what the trad rust converter does) and also leaves a very adhesive surface. The only real problem I can see is the difficulty and expense of obtaining the wet blast equipment.

Anyone have any views on the relative merits of dry blasting compared to wet blasting? Apart from the difficulty finding someone who can do wet blasting, the feedback I have had from heritage railway associates is that it is generally superior.

Not a half-tonner, but my old 3/4 ton narrow-track (now sold) was 15 ES 23. I bought it at the last ever Ruddington auction, and later found Commando badging and arctic white paint on it under the green/black. I (reluctantly) sold it around 10 years ago due to a lack of space to park it.

A mech lock fitted to the brake line should be pretty effective (albeit technically illegal now). I have used this system on Series 1 Landrovers and various other vehicles over the years. It won't completely stop them, but it will slow them down a lot especially if they can't see it. http://www.mudstuff.co.uk/Meck_Lock.shtml

Here is a very small and slightly cropped photo taken from the official report and posted on the Railways Archive website (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=125). This photo gives a good impression of the damage caused by a near immovable object being struck by a near irrestible force! Note in particular that the lead Pacific "Conqueror" is visible bottom left, and the bonnet of the pusher Diamond T is just visible bottom right. The "L"-shaped piece of debris at the top centre of the photo is, as far as I can determine, one of the rear swan-neck girders from the trailer, which has come to rest approximately 25 yards further from the point of impact than the locomotive. Sadly 11 people, including two crew in the locomotive cab, died in this accident, although had the circumstances been ever so slightly different and had the Wynns drivers not managed to move the last few yards, the outcome could have been far worse.

There's a lot of info online, it was a very major accident. Yes, it is the same Hixon, the old airfield was used by GEC as a temporary store for transformers. Unfortunately at that time the only access was over a level crossing (replaced with a bridge in 2002) which had recently had the (then newfangled) Automatic Half Barriers fitted. Due to a complete failure to undertand who was responsible for what, no-one phoned for permission to cross (everyone assumed that it was someone else's responsibility) and the rig was halfway across when the barriers came down. In the final analysis the greatest burden of responsibility was placed by the official enquiry upon the management of Wynns for failing to make sure that their drivers knew what their responsibilities were. Particularly damning was the fact that there had not long earlier been a very near miss at a different crossing with a smaller Wynns vehicle which was reported to Wynns management, who then corresponded with BR and were told in no uncertain terms that they should ensure that their drivers knew how to use these crossings correctly because the trains cannot stop! Tragically, Wynns failed to do this, and lives were lost. A very black day in an otherwise extremely impressive company history. If you google it (see link below) one of the links is to a pdf of the official report on the Railways Archive site. Whilst this is more detailed than most people want to read, it is the definitive document. It also has a number of photos including an aerial shot showing the Pacific "Conqueror" and the bonnet of the "mystery" DT. It is also not widely known that during the clearing up operations Derby's rail-mounted 75-ton capacity steam breakdown crane overturned, adding further complexity to an already complex clear-up. There is a pathe news clip (during which the toppled crane can be glimpsed) at http://www.britishpathe.com/video/train-crash-1 Main link to google search:- http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hixon+level+crossing+disaster

It is well known that a Wynns transporter carrying a transformer was involved in the awful accident at Hixon level crossing in January 1968, when it was struck by an express train on the newly-installed AHB crossing. The lead tractor of the outfit was Pacific HDW122 "Conqueror" but although it is clear from photos taken in the aftermath that the rear tractor was a Diamond T I have never been able to establish which one it was. Do any of the Wynns gurus on here know? Neither tractor was damaged (at leat not significantly) in the accident, however the trailer was destroyed (for that matter, which trailer was it?), and the driver of the rear tractor was praised in the official report into the disaster for his attempts to accelerate the transporter over the crossing as the train approached, even though by doing so he was putting himself in mortal danger. The accident would have been worse had the drivers not done this since in the event the locomotive struck the rear swan-neck, rather than the 120-ton transformer itself. As a youngster at the time, but already with a passion for both railways and heavy haulage, I can still vividly remember the shock of hearing of this accident and seeing the aftermath. If anyone can shed any light on the identity of the rear tractor and also the trailer, I would be grateful.

Spot the dude who walks under the flatrack at about 42 seconds. Don't think I'd do that!

I was about to ask if it was Grice. Orange cover IIRC. I have a (mint) copy somewhere and had no idea it was either scarce or (allegedly) valuable. Good book though, an excellent source of reference for the Donaldson Reactor.

It's actually even more interesting than that, and the story is complicated by the fact that the gun records from Priddy's Hard show 184 15" guns were manufactured and that the Navy had approx 170 in a pool that was rotated amongst ships. This was necessary since each gun had a barrel life of around 200 shots, and so were replaced fairly regularly when the ships were in service. Although the main turrets and mounts on VANGUARD did indeed come from COURAGEOUS and GLORIOUS, only one gun did so and that came via WARSPITE. Two of the turrets were in fact the spare mounts freed up when RENOWN and REPULSE were downgunned from 8-gun battlecruisers (as orignally laid down) to 6-gun battlecruisers (as built). These, together with two other 15" mounts were then used on COURAGEOUS and GLORIOUS before subsequently being installed on VANGUARD. The eights guns (as opposed to the turrets and mounts) landed from COURAGEOUS and GLORIOUS went to MALAYA, RENOWN, ROBERTS and WARSPITE. The guns mounted on VANGUARD came from QUEEN ELIZABETH (2), RAMILLIES (2), ROYAL SOVEREIGN (1), RESOLUTION (1), EREBUS (1), and WARPSITE (1), the latter being the only gun on VANGUARD to have also been on COURAGEOUS or GLORIOUS. A follow-on from this is that whilst the old adage that "VANGUARD never fired her guns in anger" may be true, it is certainly not true to say that "VANGUARD's guns were never fired in anger" since they certainly were - just not on VANGUARD.

My experience with Hammerite (and Smoothrite) has led me to the conclusion that it is overrated and over-priced. It is a good conventional paint, but it is not magic - the hammered finish is attracvtive but very difficult to get uniform without spraying, and although it can be applied on rust it doesn't contain any rust-converting properties and therefore is not a good idea to do this. This sounds a harsh assessment for one of the country's most popular paints, and I don't mean that it isn't good paint, I mean it isn't as good as its reputation and usage suggests. It is also expensive to clean brushes afterwards. For a really good paint finish, wet blast, acid wash, then prime, undercoat and topcoat. I favour paints from T & R Williamson (www.trwilliamson.co.uk). The only paint I have applied directly over light surface rust* with no preparations other than hand wire brushong and degreasing and had unexpectedly good result with is "Deproma", this really did work quite well. * There is a school of thought that says that you will get better adhesion on a lightly-rusted surface than a smooth surface, since the rust has the effect of roughening the surface. The problem of course is that you do need a rust convertor to stop the rust. Blasting (wet or dry) will achieve the same surface effect, without the rust. Needlescaling and/or power wire brushing will generally not leave a good surface for adhesion, the latter being particularly bad since it will burnish the surface and result in very poor adhesion.

To clear this up I have checked on the direct.gov website (see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/DG_201207 for more info). Under the current rules you require a medical to obtain a Cat C or D based licence and your licence is then valid until your 45th birthday. From your 45th to 65th birthdays the licence is valid for 5 years only, and from your 65th birthday onwards it is valid 1 year only. Each time you renew it you require a medical exam. The rules are however changing from 19th January 2013 after which all new C or D based licences will be valid for a maximum of 5 years only. The requirement for the initial medical exam is unchanged, thereafter to renew them prior to your 45th birthday you will be required to provide a declaration that you meet the medical standards (note, exam not required). From 45 to 65 you will require a medical exam to renew, and there is no mention of what happens after 65, so presumably it remains an annual licence. If you already have a C and/or D based licence the new rules will appply to you from the next time your licence needs to be renewed. It seems that there are several changes coming in on this date which affect a wide range of different categories and overall make the licence even more complicated than it was before. The text below is copied from the direct.gov page linked above and is the stuff concerning C and D based categories: New drivers passing a driving test from 19 January 2013 If you pass your driving test in categories C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 or D1E, after 19 January 2013 you'll receive a licence valid for five years. Every five years up to age 45, you'll need to sign a declaration to confirm that you still meet the medical standards. After age 45, you'll need to provide a medical examination report every five years to renew your driving entitlement Existing minibus, bus and lorry drivers Drivers under 45 years old If you passed a driving test in one of the categories below, you'll come under the new rules when you renew your driving licence. The categories affected are C, CE, C1, C1E, D, DE, D1 or D1E. When you renew your licence, you'll receive a licence that is valid for five years. Every time you renew it, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will need you to confirm that you still meet the medical standards. If you apply to replace your licence because it is lost/stolen, or your personal details have changed, your new licence will run until the end of your original period. However, if you update your photo at the same time, you'll come under the new five-year rule. Drivers over 45 years old Drivers over 45 will continue to renew their entitlement as they do now. When you renew your licence at the end of a five-year period, you'll be renewing your driving entitlement. You'll need to provide a medical examination report.

Every 5 years from age 45 (unless it's changed recently).

That is my understanding, noting also that B and C1+E with code (107) don't need a medical and hence don't need renewing every five years from age 45, whilst C1+E (no code 107), C, and C+E do. As far as this question.... ... goes, I don't think there is an upper limit as far as the licence is concerned; there is no "higher" licence. Cat C+E will allow you to drive the largest and heaviest combinations permitted on the road, which is usually around 44 tonnes. The actual legal limit applies to the vehicle and is set out in the C&U Regs and the Authorisation of Special Types Regs. So as far as a licence is concerned holding C+E would allow you to drive something like ALE's Unipower MH8875 with 150 tons on the back. I doubt they'd let you , though!

Was it "Wards At Work 1962. A Pictorial Survey of Recent Activities of the Ward Group of Companies" ? Thomas W Ward & Co seems to have more active in the production of books etc about its acitivies than many companies and there are several titles listed on ABE books.

The 107 restriction is only found on licences where the C1 category is present by virtue of grandfather rights, ie if you had a full car licence before the new categories came into force (1997 I think) you could drive vehicles up to 7.5 tons gvw and 8.25 tons gtw. This entitlement has no age-related restrictions, so will remain present as long as you have your licence. The "new" Euro category C1+E allows 12 tonnes GTW but since this is a greater gtw than you would have had with the old car licence, the restriction 107 was invented to reduce the scope of your entitlement. The new Euro C1+E has the same age restrictions as the cat C, ie it needs to be renewed every 5 years from age 45, but this only requires a medical, not a driving test. So the current situation is that if you have C1+E through grandfather rights you have the code 107 restriction and an enduring licence (ie it doesn't need renewing at 45). To remove the restriction you would need to take a current C1+E test which would give you the full 12 tonnes gtw entitlement (ie remove the 107) but this will need renewing every 5 years from age 45. If you have the C1+E (107) by grandfather rights and take the C1+E test to get the 107 restriction removed, and then don't renew the licence when the medical falls due, you will revert to entitlement you held through grandfather rights, ie C1+E (107). If you have taken the C1+E test since the new category was introduced, you will be 12 tonnes rated anyway. This also will of course need renewing every 5 years from 45. One slightly odd outcome from all this come is you had a full car licence and a full HGV 1 entitlement prior to the introduction of the new licence categories, like I did. Despite having full car and full HGV1 pre-97, my licence now has B+E, C1+E (107), and C+E. It took me a while to work out why the 107 hadn't cleared since the C+E obviously allows me to drive unlimited gross trains weights on the road (subject to Special Types regs etc). The reason is due to the different expiry dates; the C+E now has to be renewed every 5 years (since I am over 45) whilst the B+E and C1+E (107) do not. So if I chose not to renew the C+E entitlement, the 107 restriction would again become effective. I hope that you can make sense of this, it is actually less complicated than it sounds when you write it down. It does however require a little thought to figure it all out!

I am so relieved to hear that this truck has been recovered without damage, by far the best news of the week! There are some interesting aspects of this case which I am sure will be discussed and pursued further. One question in my mind is why did the thief phone the owner to tell him where the truck could be found (I assume it was the thief or someone involved with the theft, since otherwise there would be no reason to be anonymous)? If, as I am sure happened, the truck became so "hot" that he/she/they thought they would no longer get away with the theft, then why not simply park it up somewhere and either set it on fire (thank goodness they didn't do that) or simply leave it - it would inevitably have been noticed and found in due course? It makes me think that by in effect "returning" it undamaged, the thief hopes that no further action will be taken. I am absolutely certain that by looking for forensic evidence on the vehicle, evidence from the journey (camera evidence etc, since the start and finish locations are now known), and evidence from the phone call (which whether to/from a mobile or fixed number can be traced) the people who took this can be identified, provided of course that the Police actually can be persuaded to investigate now the truck is back wit its owner. I also wonder whether just possibly the other things stolen were taken by someone else. We seem to have assumed that only one set of criminals is involved.

I do agree with the view that is it a great shame that Vanguard wasn't saved as a floating museum, but in this country we are really not good at publicly preserving our recent history, maritime or land-based. No doubt that if she was still extant a private trust would be struggling with impossible maintenance and uptake costs. There are so many historic ships which have been lost due to a lack of funding it is a scandal really. In the states several significant capital ships have been preserved as national or state memorials (for example the survivng Iowa class battleships); it is a shame that something similar didn't happen here with Vanguard. My father served on Vanguard and has nothing but praise for the ship, she was probably the best sea-going battleship ever built. I also think it is a shame that there isn't a single preserved WW2 airfield preserved in WW2 condition, or any of the coastal batteries such as Wanstone, or any of the railguns which saw service in WW1 and WW2 and survived at Shoeburyness until realtively recently. The list just goes on and on - there is so much that has been lost. Without history there is nothing from which future generations can learn.

I believe that there is one possible loophole in this situation, which is that it is under certain circumstances possible to register your item as a trademark which then provides copy protection. There was (at least) one steam locomotive operational on UK heritage railways where this has been done, and (at least the owning company believed that) it actually legally prevented people selling photos of it commercially without a licence from the trademark owner. It did not, and in practice it is impossible to, prevent private individuals taking photos from public places for their own enjoyment. I found this out when I was looking into the possibility of hiring the loco for a photocharter, something which consequently proved to be excessively expensive as a result. I beleive that the loco has since been sold and that this may no longer be the case. I also do not know how effective this was from a legal standpoint - as far as I know the owning company never instigated proceding agains anyone. So the bottom line is that anyone can take a photo of your truck (and indeed you with it) and sell it, provided that the photo was taken from a public place. It is also a little-known fact that even the OSA does not prohibit you taking photos for your own enjoyment, it prohibits you from taking photos with the intention to assist an enemy of the state. Ergo, if you want to photograph a "prohibited place" you can, and the authorities would have to prove intent for a conviction, something which is notoriously difficult to do. Not sure I'd like to argue this with a burly policeman, though. You may also fall foul of more recent anti-terrorism laws now, of course. I came across this webpage the other day, which might be of interest to any photographers here:- http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm