utt61

Blast cleaning is quick and very effective, the only reservation is that if your vehicle is not fully stripped the blast medium will get everywhere, so bearing etc are at risk. Also any bearing surfaces, joint faces, etc need protecting. Personally I prefer wet blasting to dry blasting, but there are fewer contractors who can do this work. Needle-scaling is good for removing loose paint and scale but is surprisingly demanding and very slow, but leaves a good surface. RSI and vibration whitefinger is a real risk. Decent-sized industrial needleguns are expensinve and not easy to find (and if anyone knows a source, please let me know)! Alternatives like HD wire cup brushes in angle grinders are good for removing paint and rust but don't leave a very good surface - it tends to burnish and be too smooth for good adhesion. Generally when painting blasted or bare steel surfaces I use an acid wash, followed by the primer coat(s), undercoat(s), and top coat(s). This is effectively the same as using Fertan or similar, and will result in a good finish with excellent rust protection and very good paint adhesion.

The link in the post quoted is interesting since the direct.gov site is still showing Dual Purpose Vehicles listed under the Class 4 MOT section (which I understood had been removed from 2010). Since the definition of a DPV is contained in the C&U Regs 1986 (as amended), any Landrover with an unladen weight (note, not kerb weight) under 2040kg is a DPV, with a very few exceptions (for example the Series One 4x2 version isn't since it doesn't have all-wheel-drive). The C&U regs do not specifiy a maximum GVW or GTW for a DPV, only the unladen weight restriction. I don't know the ULW of a 127 Rapier, if it is (or can be made to be) under 2040kg, then, provided that the info on the direct.gov page above is still correct you should be eligible for a Class 4 MOT (as well as able to drive at normal i.e., car speed limits, exempt from "O" licensing, and exempt from Driver's Hours regs as well). The tax class of PLG is consistent with DVLA thinking that it is a DPV. Landrover usually quotes only kerb weights for its vehicles, and the kerb weight includes something like 70kgs for the driver, a 3/4 full tank of fuel, spare wheel, tools, etc. The legal definition of unladen weight certainly doesn't include the driver, not sure about the fuel and tools though.

It seems to me that the people who don't maintain their pre-1960 light vehicles now will continue not to maintain them, and those who do maintain theirs will also continue. There can be very, very few of the former since the figures clearly show that there are very few MOT failures with this type of vehicle. It seems to me that the only risk is that there may be people who think with the abolition of the MOT they no longer have to maintain their pre-1960 vehicles and as a reseult let them deteriorate into a dangerous condition, or who set out to buy a pre-1960 vehicle since they think it doesn't need to be maintained. Will this be a problem - I very much doubt it. I actually find it quite refreshing that for once some degree of trust and judgement is being given back to the individual, and the costs of our hobby are reducing by a very, very small amount. I will certainly not be signing the petition (quite apart from being pointless I actually think it is misguided, but that is my personal view). Remember that the stupid, irresponsible and dangerous people will always be that, legislation won't stop them. It is, always has been, and will continue to be an offence to drive an unroadworthy vehicle whether or not it has an MOT certificate. Round here (Dorset) it is now almost certain that every day you will see several vehicles which are obviously unroadworthy (eg defective lights), and you will often see the same ones regularly, unrepaired, for months. I have never seen a pre-1960 vehicle in this category. The problem is not the oldies.

Like this perhaps? http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q1CMSV81_ws This is neat too:- http://www.youtube.com/embed/VRfBJIzNrYw

My understanding is that you could use red in plant as above provided that the plant CANNOT be used on the highway rather than simply isn't being used on the highway. I.e., if it is registered for road use and taxed, than the fact that it isn't being used on the highway simply isn't enough because you could drive out of the gate onto the highway. If it is unregistered or untaxed/SORNed, then you can. But of course I may be wrong! Also, I think that the descriptions of excepted vehicles differ from the C&U descriptions; for example, I have an Iron Fairy which is to all intents and purposes a mobile crane. However it doesn't fit the C&U classification of a Mobile Crane (since it doesn't have suspension IIRC) but does fit the of Engineering Plant (I am working from memory so my wording may not be precise). As far as I know the excepted vehicle classification of Mobile Crane is self-contained not based on C&U and therefore my IF is one of the few non-agricultural vehicles which can still use red on the road. Not that it actually goes on the road! So it can be taxed as Historic Vehicle, registered as Engineering Plant, and operated as far as fuel duty is concerned as a Mobile Crane.

I am impressed with the way that this recovery was carried out, and I reckon that there is a lot that people can learn from careful study. Some very sensible practice. I like the comment at the end "where's the next one"! Thanks for posting.

That "Brake Buddy" gizmo will only work in the case of a front suspended tow, since the steering wheel cannot rotate. It seems to be generally accepted (and is certainly the view of the Police and VOSA) that it is not possible legally to tow a vehicle on an "A"-frame except in the case of a broken down vehicle being recovered to a place of safety. the question comes up quite often on the motorhome type forums, since there are those who have huge motorhomes and who want to "A"-frame something smaller to use once thye've arrived. Since when being towed, the vehicle is a trailer, then if the Maximum Authorised Mass of the towed vehicle (note not unladen weight) exceeds 750kg it must be braked in accordance with EU regulations. There doesn't seem to be any form of braking system whch can be fitted to a vehicle which will allow it to meet these (the main problems being brake efficiency and the need for the servo to be energised, and the auto-reverse requirement). If there is a system to be found, then it will probably be something the involves a power-operated pedal actuator. The weight of the towing vehicle is only relevent in the case of light vehicles towing unbraked trailers, when the gross weight of the trailer must not exceed a precentage of the towing vehicle's weight (but I forget the percentage, sorry)! It is possible that if the towed vehicle is old enough to be exempt from the current trailer brake regs then it might be possible to tow in this way legally, but this seems uncertain. Remember that if you are towing a broken-down vehicle using an "A"-frame you can only legally tow it to the nearest place of safety; not home, not to a rally site or back, just to the nearest layby or whatever. The only way to tow a seviceable Landrover behind a Scammell which is definitely legal is to put the Landrover on a trailer.

Thank you for posting that link. I hadn't seen the film before, and it is simply compelling. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times. Probably Clarkson's best documentary sofar. If you haven't seen it, do watch it. And to think that there are those who casually use the word "hero" to describe modern footballers and the like; they have no idea what a hero really is.

More than 1/3rd of my income now goes into my fuel tank for essential motoring. My monthly fuel bill is more than my mortgage. I really don't know how long this is sustainable!

I have used Deproma on a number of occasions with good results, as you says it beats Smoothrite hands down. It is quite popular in railway restoration circles.

So why not buy an aerosol can and squirt the entire contents into a small-ish plunger-type oil can? Job done!

Not sure if they are the same, but railway vehicles use steel air line couplings (not aluminium). They look (from memory) pretty similar.

The film was produced in 1960 (according to the IWM), and the carrier is HMS Centaur (R06). Centaur was the only ship of her class completed to the original (1943) design with an axial flight deck (the others were built with angled flight decks) although she was rebuilt with a 6 degree angled flight deck between 1956 and 1958. In the film, aircraft appear to be taking off axially but this may be an a trick of the perspective. After the rebuild, she flew Sea Venom (as seen in the film) and Sea Hawk aircraft, and, after a refit in 1960, Sea Vixen and Scimitar. She also appeared in the film "Sink The Bismark!" standing in for both Ark Royal and Victorious. She was paid off in December 1965 and used as an accomodation ship, stricken in 1971 and broken up the same year. Sister ships were Albion, Hermes, Bulwark, Elephant, Monmouth, Arrogant and Polyphemus. The LST which features prominently is L3516, HMS Striker. She was paid off in June 1966 and sticken in 1971.

The blue Foden is (as far as I know) the one that used to be based at Frodsham Motors of Morcombelake in Dorset.

I couldn't agree with you more! Even now it seems that we are being told we should somehow be ashamed of our heritage and pretend it didn't happen (for example Blair apologising for 'the slave trade' - so that's Ok then!). As for Vanguard, again I agree entirely. Not only the last big gun battleship, but probably the best seagoing vessel of its type ever built. My father served on her for a while, and can recall a joint exercise with one of the Iowas (I can't remember which offhand) and in heavy seas the Iowa was rolling about 15 degrees and Vanguard about 5 ! It broke his heart to watch her being towed away to the breakers. Mind you we are especially bad in this country at preserving historic ships, and you only have to look at the number lost in recent years to realise this. OK, we have some 'celebrity vessels' like the Cutty Sark, HMS Warrior, and a few others, but there have been some tragic losses. I think that the problem is that we have tended to rely upon private individuals to preserve our mechanical heritage (most steam locos and historic vehicles are privately preserved) and a ship is probably too big.

It was pressure-washed then sprayed with a rust-convertor called "Fertan".

No, and to be honest nothing I have heard or seen about the likes of facebook makes me want to. If it becomes inevitable then I will, but until then no thanks.

Found it! Issue 45 of After the Battle

Gents, thank you both for this info, especially the plastic suggestion. The pipe from the valve to the front (non-steering) axle has multiple bends and plastic would be much easier to fit. Fortunately the pipes from compressor to receiver and receiver to valve are all ok.

I have recently had to remove the footbrake valve from my 1961 ex-RoF Iron Fairy crane for servicing, and although the valve is now ready to refit I had a problem removing it from the pipework which will entail replacing some of the piping. The valve, and indeed all the other air brake parts, are standard Clayton Dewandre of the period (the valve is a "D-1" valve), and the pipes are 5/8" od steel with fittings that are similar in someways to plumbing compression fittings - there is an "olive" round the outside of the pipe and a nut which compresses the olive when tightened. On the pipe to the front brake actuators and the pipe to the rear actuators, the nut had seized onto the pipe with the result that the pipe has twisted and become deformed. I have never replaced components on an old air brake system before and have no idea how unusual and/or difficult to obtain suitable pipe and fittings are likely to be. Can anyone more informed tell me where I might be able to get suitable parts, preferably in the Dorset (Poole) general area? Very many thanks in advance; I know someone here will be able to advise!

"BRED LAST" is Swedish for "WIDE LOAD" I believe.

Another interesting point re exhausts, is that there is no mention of EGR valve removal/inhibition becoming a reason for failure. Many people were predicting that this would also be introduced. So, we Landrover owners can still quite happily drive around in our de-catted, EGR-removed motors for the time being! :-D

If the driver can get "an adequate view" to the front without looking through the windscreen wipers are not required and should not be tested. However what is meant by an "adequate view" is a bit vague, and then there is the issue of how much needs to be done to allow this "adequate view". I took a Series 1 80" ragtop in for an MOT some years ago and was talking to the examiner about this, and he said that his take then was that if the top was off and the hoodsticks to the windscreen were not fitted he would not test the wipers. If they were, then he would. His interpretation may of course not be strictly correct, but I could see where he was coming from. I have also always been a bit surprised that the same Series 1 80" used regularly to pass with just a single wiper on the driver's side, and I don't know what would happen in this situation now. Back to the Martian, though... Although the law has always said that you don't need a wiper if you can get the adequate view, since washers were made mandatory in the 60s (and this was an restrospective requirement so affects vehicles of all ages) the law has stated that if a wiper is required then washers must also be fitted. So if the Martian did need wipers (which I don't myself think it actually did) then it did need washers too. Some non-mandatory things must be tested if they are fitted, even though they don't have to be fitted. Seat belts are an example; if they are fitted to a vehicle which doesn't have to have them, they must be tested and must be OK. If defective the vehicle will fail even though they are not required, and I think that rear fog lights are the same. Wipers however do not, as far as I know, come into this category. All very confusing! No, it won't. The summary on the AA website quoted above omits to mention that the requirement for the cat only applies to spark-ignition engines (at least at the moment), and not compression-ignition engines. This is however explicitly stated in the primary source material.

I you use Google streetview from the northbound carriageway of the M5 you get a good view of it. Looks very sad now.

Very nice! Good luck with the restoration, please post lots of photos!