Might be of interest to some here ...
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298
On 07/02/2023 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
Might be of interest to some here ...
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298
Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high, given
that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930.
Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high, given
that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930. I wonder how long
it took for a similar proportion of houses to have a TV? Maybe a certain event in 1953 would have skewed the result 😉
On 07/02/2023 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
Might be of interest to some here ...
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298
Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high, given
that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930. I wonder how long it took for a similar proportion of houses to have a TV? Maybe a certain
event in 1953 would have skewed the result ;-)
Similarly for telephones. We'd had a telephone for as long as I can
remember (mid 1960s) and both sets of grandparents, and all my school friends' parents, had one, so it came as a surprise to hear how many
people said on a discussion forum that they or their parents didn't get a phone until much later. Of course availability of service and being able
to afford it is a factor... All the people I knew lived in a town and were middle-income (teacher, print-worker, accountant, university lecturer
etc). I always thought when I was little that a party line was a different level of service: that someone could choose whether to pay less for a
party line or more for an exclusive line, whereas it was normally imposed
on them depending on the number of available line-pairs to that street. I remember when my parents first got a phone at their holiday cottage in the Yorkshire Dales, they had a multiplexer box which ran their phone and a neighbours over the same line by modulating one at a higher frequency, because of lack of pairs - it was like a party line without the
exclusive-use restriction. That lasted until their exchange was enabled
for broadband, when BT *had* to provide a separate pair for every house
(that wanted broadband).
(*) OK, they may have used the term "wireless" in those days!
We had a TV in 1953, a back projection one. Its one of my first memories
at 3 years old. The coronation and the horse racing later on in the afternoons that my old gran used to use to teach me English.
Going back to radios though. The dials normally had labels like Hilversham and Athlone etc on it rather than frequencies as now. The loudspeakers on some used electromagnets, and doubled as a choke in the ht line, so always seemed to have a low level buzz. Of course many were AC and DC, u just
using a big dropper resistor in the back and one small the thing to keep
the heaters from going too brightly. As many valves were in series you
tended to get some issues where on heater stopped and nothing worked at
all. Even TVs used to do this using auto transformers when we finally went completely Ac. Thus working on any such sets meant working with a chassis often at mains potential. Risky.
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in fact
called the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was made of
course. I was born in 1950, and had a radio from as far back as I can remember sitting on top of a cupboard out of my reach. My father was
in the business, so used to get all kinds of oddball tvs and radios
to test since Rediffusion rented them all.
We had a TV in 1953, a back projection one. Its one of my first
memories at 3 years old. The coronation and the horse racing later on
in the afternoons that my old gran used to use to teach me English.
Going back to radios though. The dials normally had labels like
Hilversham and Athlone etc on it rather than frequencies as now. The loudspeakers on some used electromagnets, and doubled as a choke in
the ht line, so always seemed to have a low level buzz. Of course
many were AC and DC, u just using a big dropper resistor in the back
and one small the thing to keep the heaters from going too brightly.
As many valves were in series you tended to get some issues where on
heater stopped and nothing worked at all. Even TVs used to do this
using auto transformers when we finally went completely Ac. Thus
working on any such sets meant working with a chassis often at mains potential. Risky. Brian
It would also catch some police frequencies,
and I once listened to a police chase catching a car with a
knife-wielding guy as passenger.
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in fact called the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was made of course.
On 07/02/2023 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
Might be of interest to some here ...
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high, given that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930. I wonder how long
it took for a similar proportion of houses to have a TV? Maybe a certain event in 1953 would have skewed the result ;-)
"Brian Gaff" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:trvqei$4d1v$1...@dont-email.me...
We had a TV in 1953, a back projection one. Its one of my first memories at 3 years old. The coronation and the horse racing later on in the afternoons that my old gran used to use to teach me English.I remember when one of the knobs on our first colour TV fell off, my grandpa yelled "DON'T TOUCH THE TV", because he remembered the days of older TVs which had live chassis, hence the plastic knobs to insulate the user from the metal shank of the pot.
Going back to radios though. The dials normally had labels like Hilversham and Athlone etc on it rather than frequencies as now. The loudspeakers on some used electromagnets, and doubled as a choke in the ht line, so always seemed to have a low level buzz. Of course many were AC and DC, u just using a big dropper resistor in the back and one small the thing to keep the heaters from going too brightly. As many valves were in series you tended to get some issues where on heater stopped and nothing worked at all. Even TVs used to do this using auto transformers when we finally went completely Ac. Thus working on any such sets meant working with a chassis often at mains potential. Risky.
I always wondered: how did they prevent the screen of the TV aerial socket from being live? You could have a completely insulated TV with no exposed (live) metalwork, but you still needed an aerial socket. Did they rely on the aerial plug on the cable being insulated with a moulded-on skin of rubber?
Reminds me of my TV from about 2000 which seemed to be putting out about 100 V AC on the aerial screen via a high resistance. I noticed it when I went to unplug the aerial plug from another device (a DVB tuner in my earthed PC *) and got a noticeable tingle which was about 80 V across a human-being sized resistance (I didn't want to use my body when I was repeating the experience for testing!). After that I ran an earthing wire from a mains plug to the aerial plug, so all appliances connected to the TV would be earthed (at one point only - don't want earth loops!). Identifying the culprit took a while: there was the aerial amplifier PSU, the VCR (connected by aerial and SCART), the hifi (connected by audio lead to the VCR). Of all the possible devices, it was inevitably the TV which was the last that I tested ;-)
I've noticed that the metal case of my laptop tingles slightly if I run my finger over it while the laptop is plugged into its charger, so I imagine there is a similar thing: a moderately high voltage via a very high safety resistor. And that's with a 3-pin IEC mains socket in the charger so in theory the charger might be earthed (though I bet it's not).
(*) The TV aerial was earthed while it was connected to the tuner in the earthed PC. I put one hand on the PC case to stop it moving as I pulled out the aerial plug with the other hand. As soon as the aerial plug broke contact, it was no longer earthed and I got the 80 V AC across my chest. Not dangerous but decidedly unpleasant.
Phones were different matter, the GPO controlled that, installation
was costly and there was (still is) rental to pay,
On 08/02/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in fact called >> the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was made of course.
I mentioned that but the other well known transceiver was the Pye
Westminster and I don't think any were made in Westminster! Ditto for
Pye Whitehall.
I always wondered: how did they prevent the screen of the TV aerial socket >from being live? You could have a completely insulated TV with no exposed >(live) metalwork, but you still needed an aerial socket. Did they rely on
the aerial plug on the cable being insulated with a moulded-on skin of >rubber?
Reminds me of my TV from about 2000 which seemed to be putting out about 100 >V AC on the aerial screen via a high resistance. I noticed it when I went to >unplug the aerial plug from another device (a DVB tuner in my earthed PC *) >and got a noticeable tingle which was about 80 V across a human-being sized >resistance (I didn't want to use my body when I was repeating the experience >for testing!). After that I ran an earthing wire from a mains plug to the >aerial plug, so all appliances connected to the TV would be earthed (at one >point only - don't want earth loops!). Identifying the culprit took a while: >there was the aerial amplifier PSU, the VCR (connected by aerial and SCART), >the hifi (connected by audio lead to the VCR). Of all the possible devices, >it was inevitably the TV which was the last that I tested ;-)
I've noticed that the metal case of my laptop tingles slightly if I run my >finger over it while the laptop is plugged into its charger, so I imagine >there is a similar thing: a moderately high voltage via a very high safety >resistor. And that's with a 3-pin IEC mains socket in the charger so in >theory the charger might be earthed (though I bet it's not).
(*) The TV aerial was earthed while it was connected to the tuner in the >earthed PC. I put one hand on the PC case to stop it moving as I pulled out >the aerial plug with the other hand. As soon as the aerial plug broke >contact, it was no longer earthed and I got the 80 V AC across my chest. Not >dangerous but decidedly unpleasant.
In article <ts053j$64bs$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
thus
On 08/02/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in
fact called the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was
made of course.
I mentioned that but the other well known transceiver was the Pye >Westminster and I don't think any were made in Westminster! Ditto
for Pye Whitehall.
Used to play around with one of those years ago, sparked an interest
and setting up a firm to deal in Two Way radio!..
I didn't suppose they'll have a PYE 67 chassis TV in their showcase
that was a stinking pile of shite, i think all of them were scrapped
from an early age!..
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:30:17 +0000
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <ts053j$64bs$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net>
scribeth thus
On 08/02/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in
fact called the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was
made of course.
I mentioned that but the other well known transceiver was the Pye >Westminster and I don't think any were made in Westminster! Ditto
for Pye Whitehall.
Used to play around with one of those years ago, sparked an interest
and setting up a firm to deal in Two Way radio!..
I didn't suppose they'll have a PYE 67 chassis TV in their showcase
that was a stinking pile of shite, i think all of them were scrapped
from an early age!..
When I was a student, three of us lived in a shared house, with a TV
set. The sets were always donated free, so they were not exactly under warranty. Each holiday, one of us would take the set home, and bring
it back for the next term. I had the TV in my home bedroom once, and
suddenly there were sparks coming out of the back, and loud noises. I
shut it off and disconnected it quickly. It had fully let its
internal smoke out, it was done for. Later, I heard neighbours
discussing the massive interference that had occurred on their sets at
that exact time. I didn't say a word.
When I was a student, three of us lived in a shared house, with a TV
set. The sets were always donated free, so they were not exactly under warranty. Each holiday, one of us would take the set home, and bring it
back for the next term. I had the TV in my home bedroom once, and
suddenly there were sparks coming out of the back, and loud noises. I
shut it off and disconnected it quickly. It had fully let its
internal smoke out, it was done for. Later, I heard neighbours
discussing the massive interference that had occurred on their sets at
that exact time. I didn't say a word.
Even if rental is still chargeable on a 'phone supplied by the company,
does anybody do that now, with thousands of sets easily available that
are then owned by the user?
On 08/02/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in fact
called
the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was made of course.
I mentioned that but the other well known transceiver was the Pye
Westminster and I don't think any were made in Westminster! Ditto for
Pye Whitehall.
I used W15AM transmitters when I was a trainee! Wow - 1971 when we had
the three day week and power cuts. The Whitehall was a combination AM
and FM (hence it was a W20AM/FM) primarily for the Police. Fortunately I
left unit test before they came along - horrible things.
On 08/02/2023 12:52, Davey wrote:
Even if rental is still chargeable on a 'phone supplied by the
company, does anybody do that now, with thousands of sets easily
available that are then owned by the user?
Before I retired, my phone was paid for because I was on call much of
the time.
I kept the old (760?) phone until I retired because I found the bell
would wake me up immediately which the page did not always do as
quickly.
One could even build a crystal set from simple components or even
from scratch (I partly did so when aged 11 using a self-wound coil
and a galena crystal I found in nearby hills) for negligible cost.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:55:25 +0000
Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 13:30:17 +0000
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <ts053j$64bs$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net>
scribeth thus
On 08/02/2023 09:36, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well one of the Pie Radios used for mobile communication was in
fact called the Cambridge, which was where that sort of radio was
made of course.
I mentioned that but the other well known transceiver was the Pye
Westminster and I don't think any were made in Westminster! Ditto
for Pye Whitehall.
Used to play around with one of those years ago, sparked an interest
and setting up a firm to deal in Two Way radio!..
I didn't suppose they'll have a PYE 67 chassis TV in their showcase
that was a stinking pile of shite, i think all of them were scrapped
from an early age!..
When I was a student, three of us lived in a shared house, with a TV
set. The sets were always donated free, so they were not exactly under
warranty. Each holiday, one of us would take the set home, and bring
it back for the next term. I had the TV in my home bedroom once, and
suddenly there were sparks coming out of the back, and loud noises. I
shut it off and disconnected it quickly. It had fully let its
internal smoke out, it was done for. Later, I heard neighbours
discussing the massive interference that had occurred on their sets at
that exact time. I didn't say a word.
There was also the set we got from an Indian family, which stank of
curry for several days before it finally burned off the smell.
--
Davey.
On 08/02/2023 16:06, Woody wrote:
I used W15AM transmitters when I was a trainee! Wow - 1971 when we had
the three day week and power cuts. The Whitehall was a combination AM
and FM (hence it was a W20AM/FM) primarily for the Police. Fortunately I
left unit test before they came along - horrible things.
Could not be as bad as the ART 177!
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:40:01 +0000
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 08/02/2023 12:52, Davey wrote:
Even if rental is still chargeable on a 'phone supplied by the
company, does anybody do that now, with thousands of sets easily
available that are then owned by the user?
Before I retired, my phone was paid for because I was on call much of
the time.
I kept the old (760?) phone until I retired because I found the bell
would wake me up immediately which the page did not always do as
quickly.
I still have my last dial 'phone. soon it will be a useless
antique, once the landlines disappear.
Ever worked on a Cougar?
Even TVs had names. Rediffusion used Castles to name theirs. Doric probably the best known, and Granada had Finlandia.
Well they're not actually disappearing, they're just "going digital".
Would a purely digital phone use DTMF (Touch-Tone)? New routers are
supposed to have a socket for an analogue phone; if they can accept DTMF
I don't see why they shouldn't cope with LD (pulse dialling). If not
maybe someone will produce a converter.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 04:44:16 -0800 (PST)
"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
One could even build a crystal set from simple components or evenYears ago, we had a family friend who had made himself a legitimate
from scratch (I partly did so when aged 11 using a self-wound coil
and a galena crystal I found in nearby hills) for negligible cost.
fortune by, amongst other things, buying a closing electrical shop on
the Essex Road, in London, and with the previous manager, turning it
around into a very successful business. One day, they had a clear-out of
old unused stock, including a glass jar of 'Cat's Whiskers', that nobody
had asked for for some years. Soon after that, the new craze for
building crystal sets from scratch brought loads of customers in,
asking if they still had any cat's whiskers. They could have made
another fortune.
C'est la vie.
--
Davey.
On 09/02/2023 11:05, Max Demian wrote:
Well they're not actually disappearing, they're just "going digital". Would a purely digital phone use DTMF (Touch-Tone)? New routers are supposed to have a socket for an analogue phone; if they can accept DTMFMy BT Hub has a socket for POTS telephone but it is not enabled / configured.
I don't see why they shouldn't cope with LD (pulse dialling). If not
maybe someone will produce a converter.
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message news:trvqei$4d1v$1@dont-email.me...
We had a TV in 1953, a back projection one. Its one of my first
memories at 3 years old. The coronation and the horse racing later on
in the afternoons that my old gran used to use to teach me English.
Going back to radios though. The dials normally had labels like
Hilversham and Athlone etc on it rather than frequencies as now. The
loudspeakers on some used electromagnets, and doubled as a choke in
the ht line, so always seemed to have a low level buzz. Of course many
were AC and DC, u just using a big dropper resistor in the back and
one small the thing to keep the heaters from going too brightly. As
many valves were in series you tended to get some issues where on
heater stopped and nothing worked at all. Even TVs used to do this
using auto transformers when we finally went completely Ac. Thus
working on any such sets meant working with a chassis often at mains
potential. Risky.
I remember when one of the knobs on our first colour TV fell off, my
grandpa yelled "DON'T TOUCH THE TV", because he remembered the days of
older TVs which had live chassis, hence the plastic knobs to insulate
the user from the metal shank of the pot.
I always wondered: how did they prevent the screen of the TV aerial
socket from being live? You could have a completely insulated TV with no exposed (live) metalwork, but you still needed an aerial socket. Did
they rely on the aerial plug on the cable being insulated with a
moulded-on skin of rubber?
Reminds me of my TV from about 2000 which seemed to be putting out about
100 V AC on the aerial screen via a high resistance. I noticed it when I
went to unplug the aerial plug from another device (a DVB tuner in my
earthed PC *) and got a noticeable tingle which was about 80 V across a human-being sized resistance (I didn't want to use my body when I was repeating the experience for testing!). After that I ran an earthing
wire from a mains plug to the aerial plug, so all appliances connected
to the TV would be earthed (at one point only - don't want earth
loops!). Identifying the culprit took a while: there was the aerial
amplifier PSU, the VCR (connected by aerial and SCART), the hifi
(connected by audio lead to the VCR). Of all the possible devices, it
was inevitably the TV which was the last that I tested ;-)
I've noticed that the metal case of my laptop tingles slightly if I run
my finger over it while the laptop is plugged into its charger, so I
imagine there is a similar thing: a moderately high voltage via a very
high safety resistor. And that's with a 3-pin IEC mains socket in the
charger so in theory the charger might be earthed (though I bet it's not).
(*) The TV aerial was earthed while it was connected to the tuner in the earthed PC. I put one hand on the PC case to stop it moving as I pulled
out the aerial plug with the other hand. As soon as the aerial plug
broke contact, it was no longer earthed and I got the 80 V AC across my chest. Not dangerous but decidedly unpleasant.
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:01:35 UTC, NY wrote:with UK listeners able to tune into stations across much of Europe including radio Luxembourg from 1933.
On 07/02/2023 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
Might be of interest to some here ...Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high, given
that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930. I wonder how long
it took for a similar proportion of houses to have a TV? Maybe a certain
event in 1953 would have skewed the result ;-)
A valve radio is a relatively simple device and these quickly became available following the advent of broadcasting in the 1920's. By 1930 they were $35 (~=£7 at the time) or a couple of weeks' wages. There was also quite quickly a lot of content
One could even build a crystal set from simple components or even from scratch (I partly did so when aged 11 using a self-wound coil and a galena crystal I found in nearby hills) for negligible cost.production diverted for military purposes. Broadcasts resumed after the war, but resources were diverted into reconstruction and having [delayed] families. The UK missed the boat on colour TV by 14 years and there was no competition until 1955. Whilst
OTOH TV was introduced in 1936. The first sets retailed for £1,000 (probably a couple of years' average wages), there was only the BBC on a limited schedule and initially only in London. WWII meant TV was off for seven years and electronics
Phones were different matter, the GPO controlled that, installation was costly and there was (still is) rental to pay, anything but local calls were eye wateringly expensive. Subscribers could wait years for a line to be available with almost sovietstyle delays. Party lines were common and often obligatory, although unlike the USA only two would ever share a line [pair]. In the sticks many exchanges were still manual and only staffed part time. Things only really started improving when telephony
Business hubs have disabled socket, residential ones have an enabled socket and you can get a little plug in module for extensions. They do DTMF OK, not tried loop disconnect. I have got an LD phone, but it was last used ~1994, when our exchange wentfrom Strowger to System X.
It is surprising how often the numbers stick in the memory - I can still remember Sony 9-90UB but don't think I can remember a single other TV's number.
One factor with consumer goods like TV sets is that the same model would
be supplied to different chains of shops with slightly different numbers
and some minor part of the spec changed. To make it more difficult to compare between different shops and reviews in places like Which magazine.
When I was a student, three of us lived in a shared house, with a TV
set. The sets were always donated free, so they were not exactly under warranty. Each holiday, one of us would take the set home, and bring it
back for the next term. I had the TV in my home bedroom once, and
suddenly there were sparks coming out of the back, and loud noises. I
shut it off and disconnected it quickly. It had fully let its
internal smoke out, it was done for. Later, I heard neighbours
discussing the massive interference that had occurred on their sets at
that exact time. I didn't say a word.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical except for their name plates?
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical except for their name plates?
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical except for their name plates?
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical
except for their name plates?
Different bonnet shapes
On 09/02/2023 13:38, charles wrote:
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:Different bonnet shapes
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical >>> except for their name plates?
Were they? Are you talking about the A60 Pinifarina Cambridge and
Oxford? I thought they were pretty well identical at front and back
(apart from trim), and that the Wolseley equivalent was the odd one out
with slightly sharper fins and more pointed rear light clusters (maybe
a carry-over from the slightly different A55 predecessor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Morris_Oxford_ >1964_1.JPG/420px-Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Austin_A60_Cam >bridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg/420px-Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29 >_-_9700712146.jpg
look the same apart from the trim.@
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more >prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have had
any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less prestigious than
the other is another matter ;-)
On 09/02/2023 13:06, Java Jive wrote:
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical
except for their name plates?
That was the case with many Austin / Morris models.
In message <87ycnVtLM4wFYXn-nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
On 09/02/2023 13:38, charles wrote:
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>,
   Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:Â Different bonnet shapes
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much
identical
except for their name plates?
Were they? Are you talking about the A60 Pinifarina Cambridge and
Oxford? I thought they were pretty well identical at front and back
(apart from trim), and that the Wolseley equivalent was the odd one
out with slightly sharper fins and more pointed rear light clusters
(maybe a carry-over from the slightly different A55 predecessor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Morris_Oxford_
1964_1.JPG/420px-Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Austin_A60_Cam
bridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg/420px-Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29
_-_9700712146.jpg
look the same apart from the trim.@
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more
prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have
had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less prestigious
than the other is another matter ;-)
Wasn't the ultimate the Vanden Plas?
On 09/02/2023 11:39, MB wrote:
It is surprising how often the numbers stick in the memory - I can
still remember Sony 9-90UB but don't think I can remember a single
other TV's number.
I don't find that at all, even with cars, let alone tvs or radios. Cars used to have memorable names until the early personal computer era, when
CPU names like 286, 386 became associated with expensive domestic
products, and suddenly everyone was designating car models by numbers
instead of names, which ironically seemed to happen just about the time
that chip makers started to give their CPUs names like Pentium!
On 08/02/2023 12:44 pm, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:01:35 UTC, NY wrote:
On 07/02/2023 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
Might be of interest to some here ...Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high, given >>> that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930. I wonder how long
it took for a similar proportion of houses to have a TV? Maybe a certain >>> event in 1953 would have skewed the result ;-)
A valve radio is a relatively simple device and these quickly became
available following the advent of broadcasting in the 1920's. By 1930
they were $35 (~=£7 at the time) or a couple of weeks' wages. There
was also quite quickly a lot of content with UK listeners able to tune
into stations across much of Europe including radio Luxembourg from 1933.
One could even build a crystal set from simple components or even from
scratch (I partly did so when aged 11 using a self-wound coil and a
galena crystal I found in nearby hills) for negligible cost.
OTOH TV was introduced in 1936. The first sets retailed for £1,000
(probably a couple of years' average wages), there was only the BBC on
a limited schedule and initially only in London. WWII meant TV was
off for seven years and electronics production diverted for military
purposes. Broadcasts resumed after the war, but resources were
diverted into reconstruction and having [delayed] families. The UK
missed the boat on colour TV by 14 years and there was no competition
until 1955. Whilst there was a big boost for TV sales caused by
QEII's coronation, mass market uptake was slow, impeded by all the
above plus extortionate 100% purchase tax. Nevertheless my parents
had a TV before 1960, probably on HP.
I remember that we had one - rented - before the start of ITV. It wasn't
even ITV-ready.
I am aware of the eventual location of "Watch With Mother" strands, but
what ever happened to Muffin the Mule and Hank the Cowboy?
Phones were different matter, the GPO controlled that, installation
was costly and there was (still is) rental to pay, anything but local
calls were eye wateringly expensive. Subscribers could wait years for
a line to be available with almost soviet style delays. Party lines
were common and often obligatory, although unlike the USA only two
would ever share a line [pair]. In the sticks many exchanges were
still manual and only staffed part time. Things only really started
improving when telephony was [gradually] opened to competition from
the early 1980's - only then could you even get anything but a
standard phone.
On 09/02/2023 13:38, charles wrote:
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>,
   Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical >>> except for their name plates?
Different bonnet shapes
Were they? Are you talking about the A60 Pinifarina Cambridge and
Oxford?
I thought they were pretty well identical at front and back
(apart from trim), and that the Wolseley equivalent was the odd one out
with slightly sharper fins and more pointed rear light clusters (maybe a carry-over from the slightly different A55 predecessor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG/420px-Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg/420px-Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg
look the same apart from the trim.@
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have had
any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less prestigious than
the other is another matter ;-)
On Thu 09/02/2023 14:09, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <87ycnVtLM4wFYXn-nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@brightview.co.uk>, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
On 09/02/2023 13:38, charles wrote:
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>,
   Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd
choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the Different bonnet shapes
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much
identical
except for their name plates?
Were they? Are you talking about the A60 Pinifarina Cambridge and
Oxford? I thought they were pretty well identical at front and
back (apart from trim), and that the Wolseley equivalent was the
odd one out with slightly sharper fins and more pointed rear light
clusters (maybe a carry-over from the slightly different A55
predecessor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Morris_Oxford_ >> 1964_1.JPG/420px-Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Austin_A60_Cam >> bridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg/420px-Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29 >> _-_9700712146.jpg
look the same apart from the trim.@
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two?
I remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were
more prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he
would have had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was
less prestigious than the other is another matter ;-)
Wasn't the ultimate the Vanden Plas?
And the 'sporty' version, the Riley?
On Thu 09/02/2023 13:21, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2023 12:44 pm, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 16:01:35 UTC, NY wrote:
On 07/02/2023 13:34, Java Jive wrote:
Might be of interest to some here ...Ah, I didn't know that Pye's factory was in Cambridge. [By the 1930s]
Pye radio and TV sets go on display in Cambridge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64547298
"Half the homes in the country had a radio set" (*) is quite high,
given
that BBC was only founded 8 years earlier than 1930. I wonder how long >>>> it took for a similar proportion of houses to have a TV? Maybe a
certain
event in 1953 would have skewed the result ;-)
A valve radio is a relatively simple device and these quickly became
available following the advent of broadcasting in the 1920's. By
1930 they were $35 (~=£7 at the time) or a couple of weeks' wages.
There was also quite quickly a lot of content with UK listeners able
to tune into stations across much of Europe including radio
Luxembourg from 1933.
One could even build a crystal set from simple components or even
from scratch (I partly did so when aged 11 using a self-wound coil
and a galena crystal I found in nearby hills) for negligible cost.
OTOH TV was introduced in 1936. The first sets retailed for £1,000
(probably a couple of years' average wages), there was only the BBC
on a limited schedule and initially only in London. WWII meant TV
was off for seven years and electronics production diverted for
military purposes. Broadcasts resumed after the war, but resources
were diverted into reconstruction and having [delayed] families. The
UK missed the boat on colour TV by 14 years and there was no
competition until 1955. Whilst there was a big boost for TV sales
caused by QEII's coronation, mass market uptake was slow, impeded by
all the above plus extortionate 100% purchase tax. Nevertheless my
parents had a TV before 1960, probably on HP.
I remember that we had one - rented - before the start of ITV. It
wasn't even ITV-ready.
I am aware of the eventual location of "Watch With Mother" strands,
but what ever happened to Muffin the Mule and Hank the Cowboy?
Who remembers Four Feather Falls?
Phones were different matter, the GPO controlled that, installation
was costly and there was (still is) rental to pay, anything but local
calls were eye wateringly expensive. Subscribers could wait years
for a line to be available with almost soviet style delays. Party
lines were common and often obligatory, although unlike the USA only
two would ever share a line [pair]. In the sticks many exchanges
were still manual and only staffed part time. Things only really
started improving when telephony was [gradually] opened to
competition from the early 1980's - only then could you even get
anything but a standard phone.
It is arguable that the arrival of Mercury (remember the Blue Button?)
was the thing that made BT open their eyes to DTMF. Until then plus
someone in (Reading?) threatening/taking legal action against BT because
they would not permit DTMF even though their kit could use it.
On 09/02/2023 02:00 pm, NY wrote:
On 09/02/2023 13:38, charles wrote:
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>,
   Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much
identical
except for their name plates?
Different bonnet shapes
Were they? Are you talking about the A60 Pinifarina Cambridge and Oxford?
The shape started with the A55. The A60 had more streamlined fins (maybe
a couple of other small amendments to the shape) and an uprated B-series engine. But yes, it was very similar to the Farina-designed A55.
I thought they were pretty well identical at front and back (apart
from trim), and that the Wolseley equivalent was the odd one out with
slightly sharper fins and more pointed rear light clusters (maybe a
carry-over from the slightly different A55 predecessor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG/420px-Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg/420px-Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg
look the same apart from the trim.@
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more
prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have
had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less prestigious
than the other is another matter ;-)
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more
prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have
had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less
prestigious than the other is another matter ;-)
The Morris was the Oxford, originally 1489(?)cc and then uprated to 1622cc. The Wolseley equivalent were the 15/60 and the 16/60 - I know as I
learned to driver my father's 16/60 and I passed first time 22 Feb 1968!
The Riley version of the 16/60 was the 4/72 - I have a recollection it
got the extra poke from having twin SU carbs?
On 09/02/2023 21:35, Woody wrote:
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more
prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have
had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less
prestigious than the other is another matter ;-)
The Morris was the Oxford, originally 1489(?)cc and then uprated to
1622cc.
The Wolseley equivalent were the 15/60 and the 16/60 - I know as I
learned to driver my father's 16/60 and I passed first time 22 Feb 1968!
The Riley version of the 16/60 was the 4/72 - I have a recollection it
got the extra poke from having twin SU carbs?
I could vaguely remember the different naming conventions "15/60" or
"16/60" for Wolseley, "4/72" for Riley. MG version used the name
"Magnette" IIRC.
The only obvious difference that I was aware of between Austin Cambridge
and Morris Oxford of the A60 (apart from trim/grilles) was the one had a ribbon speedo combined with small oil and fuel gauges, whereas the other
had conventional circular gauges - but I wouldn't have a clue which was which. Likewise for Austin/Morris 1100/1300.
But did the various badge-engineered variants use different body panels,
such as different bonnets, as someone up-thread said?
On Thu 09/02/2023 21:10, JNugent wrote:
On 09/02/2023 02:00 pm, NY wrote:
On 09/02/2023 13:38, charles wrote:
In article <ts2r4l$m6po$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 09/02/2023 08:53, Brian Gaff wrote:
unless they made an Oxford as well, Cambridge was an odd choice.
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were the
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much
identical except for their name plates?
Different bonnet shapes
Were they? Are you talking about the A60 Pinifarina Cambridge and
Oxford?
The shape started with the A55. The A60 had more streamlined fins
(maybe a couple of other small amendments to the shape) and an uprated B-series engine. But yes, it was very similar to the Farina-designed
A55.
I thought they were pretty well identical at front and back (apart
from trim), and that the Wolseley equivalent was the odd one out with
slightly sharper fins and more pointed rear light clusters (maybe a
carry-over from the slightly different A55 predecessor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG/420px-Morris_Oxford_1964_1.JPG
and
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg/420px-Austin_A60_Cambridge_%281966%29_-_9700712146.jpg
look the same apart from the trim.@
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I
remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more
prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have
had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less prestigious
than the other is another matter ;-)
The Morris was the Oxford, originally 1489(?)cc and then uprated to
1622cc. The Wolseley equivalent were the 15/60 and the 16/60 - I know as
I learned to driver my father's 16/60 and I passed first time 22 Feb
1968! The Riley version of the 16/60 was the 4/72 - I have a recollection
it got the extra poke from having twin SU carbs?
On 09/02/2023 10:33 pm, NY wrote:
On 09/02/2023 21:35, Woody wrote:
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I >>>>> remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more
prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have
had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less
prestigious than the other is another matter ;-)
The Morris was the Oxford, originally 1489(?)cc and then uprated to
1622cc.
The Wolseley equivalent were the 15/60 and the 16/60 - I know as I
learned to driver my father's 16/60 and I passed first time 22 Feb 1968! >>> The Riley version of the 16/60 was the 4/72 - I have a recollection it
got the extra poke from having twin SU carbs?
I could vaguely remember the different naming conventions "15/60" or
"16/60" for Wolseley, "4/72" for Riley. MG version used the name
"Magnette" IIRC.
The only obvious difference that I was aware of between Austin Cambridge
and Morris Oxford of the A60 (apart from trim/grilles) was the one had a
ribbon speedo combined with small oil and fuel gauges, whereas the other
had conventional circular gauges - but I wouldn't have a clue which was
which. Likewise for Austin/Morris 1100/1300.
I had an Austin Cambridge when I first learned to drive. It had
conventional round gauges.
But did the various badge-engineered variants use different body panels,
such as different bonnets, as someone up-thread said?
Pass.
The Wolseley and Riley, I'm sure, had very distinctive front grilles.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:25:46 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 09/02/2023 10:33 pm, NY wrote:
On 09/02/2023 21:35, Woody wrote:
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the
two? I remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they
were more prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether
he would have had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris
was less prestigious than the other is another matter ;-)
The Morris was the Oxford, originally 1489(?)cc and then uprated
to 1622cc.
The Wolseley equivalent were the 15/60 and the 16/60 - I know as
I learned to driver my father's 16/60 and I passed first time 22
Feb 1968! The Riley version of the 16/60 was the 4/72 - I have a
recollection it got the extra poke from having twin SU carbs?
I could vaguely remember the different naming conventions "15/60"
or "16/60" for Wolseley, "4/72" for Riley. MG version used the
name "Magnette" IIRC.
The only obvious difference that I was aware of between Austin
Cambridge and Morris Oxford of the A60 (apart from trim/grilles)
was the one had a ribbon speedo combined with small oil and fuel
gauges, whereas the other had conventional circular gauges - but I
wouldn't have a clue which was which. Likewise for Austin/Morris
1100/1300.
I had an Austin Cambridge when I first learned to drive. It had >conventional round gauges.
But did the various badge-engineered variants use different body
panels, such as different bonnets, as someone up-thread said?
Pass.
The Wolseley and Riley, I'm sure, had very distinctive front
grilles.
They did. Wolseley had a badge at the top of the grille, which lit up
with the sidelights.
On a related note, my first car was a Singer Chamois, which was a
Hillman Imp by any other name, with the walnut dash mentioned
upthread. Unfortunately it had the same propensity to blow cylinder
head gaskets.
My father had a Wolseley 4/44.
On 09/02/2023 13:06, Java Jive wrote:
ISTR that the Austin Cambridge and Morris Oxford models were theThat was the case with many Austin / Morris models.
up-market versions of Austin Morris cars, but were pretty much identical except for their name plates?
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 01:25:46 +0000, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 09/02/2023 10:33 pm, NY wrote:
On 09/02/2023 21:35, Woody wrote:
Was the Austin or the Morris regard as the higher-spec of the two? I >>>>>> remember my grandpa always bought Wolseleys because they were more >>>>>> prestigious than "mere" Austin or Morris, but whether he would have >>>>>> had any opinions as to which of Austin and Morris was less
prestigious than the other is another matter ;-)
The Morris was the Oxford, originally 1489(?)cc and then uprated to
1622cc.
The Wolseley equivalent were the 15/60 and the 16/60 - I know as I
learned to driver my father's 16/60 and I passed first time 22 Feb 1968! >>>> The Riley version of the 16/60 was the 4/72 - I have a recollection it >>>> got the extra poke from having twin SU carbs?
I could vaguely remember the different naming conventions "15/60" or
"16/60" for Wolseley, "4/72" for Riley. MG version used the name
"Magnette" IIRC.
The only obvious difference that I was aware of between Austin Cambridge >>> and Morris Oxford of the A60 (apart from trim/grilles) was the one had a >>> ribbon speedo combined with small oil and fuel gauges, whereas the other >>> had conventional circular gauges - but I wouldn't have a clue which was
which. Likewise for Austin/Morris 1100/1300.
I had an Austin Cambridge when I first learned to drive. It had
conventional round gauges.
But did the various badge-engineered variants use different body panels, >>> such as different bonnets, as someone up-thread said?
Pass.
The Wolseley and Riley, I'm sure, had very distinctive front grilles.
They did. Wolseley had a badge at the top of the grille, which lit up
with the sidelights.
On a related note, my first car was a Singer Chamois, which was a
Hillman Imp by any other name, with the walnut dash mentioned
upthread. Unfortunately it had the same propensity to blow cylinder
head gaskets.
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message news:5a746fa1e7charles@candehope.me.uk...
My father had a Wolseley 4/44.
Did it come equipped with the "POLICE" signs on the side, the blue light
and the bell on the front bumper? ;-)
How were the Wolseley and Riley model names parsed? For Wolseley 15/60
and 16/60, I presume the 15 or 16 was the engine size 1.5 or 1.6 litre,
but what was the significance of the second number? I could have
understood it if the names had been 15/55 and 16/60 (different engine
sizes and based on A55 or A60 body).
In article <ts545b$10qcs$2@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5a746fa1e7charles@candehope.me.uk...
My father had a Wolseley 4/44.
Did it come equipped with the "POLICE" signs on the side, the blue light
and the bell on the front bumper? ;-)
No. I don't think the Police used this smaller model, anyway.
How were the Wolseley and Riley model names parsed? For Wolseley 15/60
and 16/60, I presume the 15 or 16 was the engine size 1.5 or 1.6 litre,
but what was the significance of the second number? I could have
understood it if the names had been 15/55 and 16/60 (different engine
sizes and based on A55 or A60 body).
I think it was BHP
On 09/02/2023 11:05, Max Demian wrote:
Well they're not actually disappearing, they're just "going digital".
Would a purely digital phone use DTMF (Touch-Tone)? New routers are
supposed to have a socket for an analogue phone; if they can accept DTMF
I don't see why they shouldn't cope with LD (pulse dialling). If not
maybe someone will produce a converter.
My BT Hub has a socket for POTS telephone but it is not enabled /
configured.
My BT Hub has a socket for POTS telephone but it is not enabled /When we went to fibre I was surprised to find that despite the POTS
configured.
socket their 'phone solution was a DECT 'phone. Which meant our
answering machine was no longer any use.
It is arguable that the arrival of Mercury (remember the Blue Button?)
On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 20:25:41 +0000, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
It is arguable that the arrival of Mercury (remember the Blue Button?)
I can still remember the damned 6+4 digit code that you used to have
to enter after dialling 131 and waiting for the secondary tone (well
it still played it in DTMF form when you'd put it in a memory).
I haven't thought about that for a considerable number of years, until
now. :-(
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 463 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 157:00:52 |
| Calls: | 9,384 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,561 |
| Messages: | 6,095,919 |
