utt61

Responce from Catherine Bearder MEP................

 

 

 

Dear Constituent,

 

Thank you for your email about possible changes to firearms regulation in the European Union (EU).

 

....

So 95% of her reply is telling you what it is that you wrote to her about! The only original thoughts are "I am minded to support these proposals" and "I will not support over-regulation and a knee-jerk reaction".

I don't know whether to be depressed or very depressed.

That is an object of breathtaking beauty and awesomeness!

I greatly admire both your skill and your patience to be able to create such a fantastic model!

Thank you for sharing the photos with us.

Thanks for the advice.

It seems that the easiest plan might be to drain out, fill with fresh fuel, and then add a little of the stale stuff each tankful till it's gone. Simple plan, good idea!

On the subject of contaminated fuel, I have often felt that it would be a good plan to buy an ex-mil vehicle with a true multifuel engine, since I am told (a) that these run quite happily on 'contam' (diesel/petrol mix, such as comes out of a mis-fueled car), and (b) since the tax has already been paid on the fuel drained out after a misfuel and there is a significant cost to dispose of the resultant contam through regular processes, very often garages and similar services will be delighted to let you have as much as you want entirely free of charge. Whether the latter is true or not I don't know, but free fuel would be a considerable attraction.

I will (time permitting) hopefully soon be trying to resurrect and start one of my Series 1 Landrovers, which has stood in storage for about ten years. Unfortunately it had about six gallons of unleaded it the tank when it was last put away.

So I fully expect there to be some 'issues', mostly fuel related, when I come to resurrect it.

However, one issue on which I would welcome some advice is the legally correct way to dispose of any old, probably very stale, fuel which remains in the tank. I can drain it out into a suitable container, but how on earth do I then dispose of it properly?

Any ideas, folks, please?

(Please, not the old school "hole in the ground" method, etiher)!

Not my specialist subject so this might be a daft suggestion, but it looks to me like the Bantam trailer for a Jeep, with the canvas covering the flare along the top????

Information regarding washers and wipers from the MoT testers manual:

 

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_820.htm

 

As for what defines an opening windscreen I would suggest it should be one which is designed to open or fold. A Land Rover windscreen is designed to fold as it has hinges, regardless of what method is used to secure it up or down. I would therefore suggest that anything from a S1 to a latest spec Defender should be exempt from needing washers. Good luck convincing the tester of that though! With the older vehicles it is unfortunately very much up to the tester's interpretation.

 

Note also that the tester is obliged to test the vehicle as presented so you can always lower the screen before you drive in.

 

- MG

Latest spec Defenders (Td5 and Tdci) don't even have hinges any more.

I may be wrong on this, but I think it does need windscreen washers. As I recall, C&U Regs allow for a vehicle to have neither wipers not washers if "an adequate view to the front can be obtained without looking through the windscreen" but if either wipers or washers are present, then both must be fitted. All vehicles with wipers are therefore required to have washers, whether or not the wipers are a legal requirement.

There has always been some uncertainty about what constitutes and opening windscreen, at least one which which negates the need for wipers and washers, but the pragmatic approach which has been been adopted by my local MOT tester (so he told me about ten years ago) was that if the screen needs tools to be opened or folded, it isn't adequate, if it doesn't need tools, then it is and wipers and washers are not needed. His view therefore was that when I presented my 86" Series 1 Land-Rover for test, it needed wipers since the hoodsticks are atteched with nuts and bolts to the windscreen frame. My 80" did not, since it used wingnuts! I have no idea if this has any legal foundation - I rather doubt it.

A more practical approach in my opinion is take the line that a windscreen that can be opened whilst driving the vehicle requires no wipers, but one which requires the driver to stop does.

Some research has added, perhaps, a little clarity to the situation.

Prior to 2001 only a vehicle first registered before 1 Jan 1973 could display black and silver registration plates.

From 2001 until 2015 there was an extension which allowed a vehicle built prior to 1/1/1973 but not registered until after this date also to display black and silver plates.

From April 2015, a vehicle which is taxed as an Historic Vehicle but which was built after 1/1/1973 is also allowed to display black and silver number plates (so the rolling 40-year cut-off now applies to such vehicles).

The change came about because of a provision in the Finance Bill 2014 and subsequent Finance Acts which altered the Historic Vehicle class cut-off year from 1973 firstly to 1974 and later to a rolling forty years. The wording of the legislation had the (probably completely unintended) effect of linking the HV tax class to permission to display black and silver plates.

The original legislation remains unaffected, so it is good news for those with pre-1973 vehicles which are ineligible for taxing as HV (for example pre-1973 vehicles still used in connection with a trade or business) who do not, as suggested by the DVLA's appallingly confusing and contradictory website, have to fit reflective plates.

Quite why anyone with a post-1973 but older-than-40-years vehicle (other than an MV where I can see the obvious benefit) would want to replace an original reflective plate with a black and silver plate escapes me, but doubtless there will be those with 'vanity plates' who want to do so!

I cannot believe that this was an intended consequence of the Finance Bill!

Since the DVLA cannot have made this decision (the date is defined in an act of Parliament), does anyone know from which recent legislation the change originates?

I bought a wet blasting unit to use during the restoration of a large steam crane.

In my experience wet blasting is superior in just about every respect. It is more controllable, there is less airborne mess, and it actually seems to clean better. There is no problem with surface rust, and the best overall results we've had have been to wet blast, acid wash the surface when dry (dilute phosphoric acid, sold for this purpose), then scotchbrite, then prime, undercoat and paint. This has produced levels of adhesion many times better than traditional restoration methods with little extra hassle.

For optimal paint adhesion a "flash rust" surface is a good thing.

I would however never operate the wet blaster without an air-fed helmet.

It'd be nice if he had the time to put all the clips together into a playlist in the correct sequence - there are many of them and it's hard to know the running order.

Hairy moment without a doubt, I hope that the guy who nearly bails out was OK, together with the rest of the crew. There's no suggestion of injury and any of the clips that I can see.

An intersting recovery job!

A total non-expert view here, and I apologise for any incorrect terminology -

I think that it is the fore-carriage of a four-wheeled vehicle, and therefore don't think it is a gun limber or carriage. The top bolster looks as though it swivels about a point directly over the centre of the axle, the bit sticking out the back looks to me as though it is to stop the fore-carriage folding up backwards under whatever is following it. If it was a limber, gun carriage, or any other kind of two-wheeled vehicle surely there would be either a single pole (for two horses) or a pair (for a single horse) running forwards from the front beam, in order to support the vehicle.

The quality of construction looks completely compatible with a military vehicle, but I think it is just part of a larger whole.

It will be almost impossible to tow a Landrover on an A-frame legally in the UK, and the cost and complexity will be such that realistically it is a non-starter. Using a trailer is an option, or pay a haulier to freight it.

There are some relaxations for recovery work but these won't apply in your case, so if you are A-framing you need all the brakes to work at full efficiency, with the servo working. You may still have problems due to the fact you cannot reverse, I am not sure of the legal implications of this aspect.

I've always knocked them out from behind with a pin punch in the manner Richard suggests. Never (yet) had a problem.

I don't think that the last few posts are any less believable than most of the Daily Mail's 'reporting'!

It reminds me very much of the things traditionally used to fill the sand boxes of steam locomotives. Like a watering can but with an oversize spout, designed for dispensing fine dry sand.

The location for that photo is Wool, Dorset, and it is a few miles from the Tank Museum. The historic farm in the background is still immediately recognisable today, though the road layout has changed slightly.

The film centred on a German invasion of Britain, and I think the title was "It Happened Here" but it's years since I saw it so I may be wrong with the title.

There are pictures of the two of them in (very slightly) happier days here:-

https://www.flickr.com/photos/47103967@N02/5005552340/

Each in its way is an absolutely classic and unmolested example of a period heavy recovery vehicle and I would love to see them both restored as such. The LWB closed cab is particularly well proportioned, an absolute classic. I wish I had the space and the dosh, but sadly I have neither. Please someone, buy them!

Anyone recognise the recovery gear on the back of the long one? Home-made or off something else? Looks to me a little as though it might be a TFL unit.

Latest reports suggest that, astonishingly, there are zero human fatalities, only one person injured, and one pet dog killed. The rescue teams have apparently withdrawn the earlier widely-reported estimate of 20 persons injured.

Given the appaling scale of the destruction this is little short of miraculous.

It will be interesting in due course to read the report of the investigation which has now started, and in the meantime, as you point out, speculation is both futile and inappropriate.

I'm not really sure how anyone actually expected that that would end any other way, it looked doomed to failure from the start.

Drag link sockets are also available from Snap On in the UK (and can be bought online).

http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/search_keyword.asp?keyword=Drag+Link+Sockets

You need to read the Construction & Use regs and possibly the Special Types regs to determine what class best suits the vehicle for registration purposes. Having established that the taxation class may become clearer.

I agree completely that a pro quality low vibe needle gun is expensive, and not everyone will want to or be able to fork out for one. I agonised for while and wore out a cheap one before deciding that, since I only have one pair of hands and will only ever have one pair, they were worth more than the £400 or so that a pro gun costs.

The contrast is staggering and I have never regretted it.

No point restoring something if doing so cripples you to the extent you can't enjoy it!

(The needlegun was a lot cheaper than the wet blaster)!

Based on my experience with heavy paint and rust removal, my preference would be:

1. Wet blasting. Needs a wet blaster, massive (3 or 4 tool road compressor), and pressure fed helmet, so not easy. It gives the best control, quickest, and most satisfactory results.

2. Dry blasting. As above but less control, more mess, and harsher control and finish.

3. Needlegunning (or needlescaling). I wouldn't myself bother with a low quaility Machine Mart type toy, I'd get a professional quality low vibe tool if there's a lot to do. It is quicker, does a better job, and you're less likely to be crippled by vibration whitefinger. I use a Trelawney low vibe tool and have been very impressed. You will need a big compressor (not as big as for blasting though). See http://www.trelawnydirect.com/trelawny-vl303-low-vibration-needle-scaler.html

I avoid angle grinders with wire brushes or flaps since the burnished surface they tend to leave makes for poor paint adhesion.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32973341/british-tank-crushes-learner-drivers-car-in-germany

I am intrigued at the statement in the linked article "The car, however, suffered 12,000 euros (£8,600) worth of damage". The car must be a write-off - it cannot be economically repairable after that encounter - so I presume this is sloppy reporting for "the car, which prior to the accident was worth 12,000 euros, was a write-off".