Update on payment options (prepaid account)

Paul F That looks interesting please keep us informed how that goes.

Paul

1. Two crossings made over the weekend, northbound Saturday 11am, barriers still in use but traffic flowing reasonably well, Southbound 6pm last night, all running freely, and no barriers.

From what I could see last evening the northbound crossing was being diverted around the barriers – presumably because traffic flow was lighter than when I crossed on saturday morning?

2. Pre-pay Payment method – I deposited £10 into my new dart Charge account last week but did not select the “auto top up” option.

Having made two crossings this weekend, I have not yet had any email requesting a top up, and a check of my Dart Charge account this morning shows that my account balance is sitting well below £10.

Thus, there seems to be no need to set up the auto-debit facility, so long as you remember to check there are funds to cover any future crossings you wish/expect to make.

Time will tell as to whether the system is smart enough to request a top up once the account balance falls below the cost of a single crossing…

Paul F

set up account £10. Drive through once balance drops below £10 so immediately topped up with £10. Thus my account stands at £18.33.

Paul – I presume you set your account up with the automatic top up feature? I have set an account up but opted out of the auto top up, so I assume I can run my account down below £10, so long as it stays in credit and covers any crossings I make… I’ll find out when I use crossing for first time this weekend. I decided not to set up the auto top up feature for exactly the reason you describe.

Paul F

Would probably have been either the white/green ex-Hulton one G-BJHS (IIRC) that is now with Kermit Weeks’ collection at Polk City in Florida (that one has an “executive” type interior), or it would be the red/white/black example that is now in the Southampton Aviation Museum, VR-??? ex-Antilles Airboats.

The Weeks example stayed in UK for a while, and spent some time at Calshot Castle (It was definitely still there in spring 1984)before it went Stateside
I seem to recall the Antilles example was transported into Southampton harbour on a barge, which seems to fit your colleagues memory, but 1979-80 seems a bit early? (Or maybe I’m just suffering from the usual “was it really that long ago?!” that comes with age :-O).

Paul F

Re 9

Blimey ! I’m more than impressed. All that, and we can’t even repair our roads !

Yes, I had no idea how involved the software side of the Dartford project was, and I imagine many others also assumed it was simply an ANPR type system to identify vehicles passing through the crossing and a bolt-on billing program to ensure tolls were paid within 24hrs, and any non-payments followed up etc.

The thought that commercial vehicles had to be sorted and managed by virtue of their (potentially hazardous) cargo simply hadn’t ocurred to me until my contact explained what was involved.

As you say, given we can barely maintain a few pot-holes, or keep M25 running smoothly, the chances of “Barrier-less Dartford” running smoothly in the early days look to be somewhat slim.

Still, with so many “players” involved, hardware suppliers, software engineers, DVLA (system will need access to DVLA database), Civil engineering contractors et al I am sure there will be much opportunity for ‘finger-pointing’ and passing blame on to others when the glitches appear. Not that that will help the poor souls stuck in the traffic jams that result…

Charlie, you may indeed be correct, Dartford crossing may be privately owned – if so I am sure HMG/Highways Agency are still closely involved – a major trunk route bottleneck like that must be one they want to keep close tabs on. No doubt it’s one of those pieces of road infrastructure that is “Managed by xyz on behalf of Highways Agency”.

The trouble is that many of today’s cinema-goers forget they are watching something made purely for their “entertainment”, and tend to think they are watching dramatised documentaries that are (closely in their minds?) based on truth?

I also think subtlety has also been lost, so a shot of a ticking clock as per Dambusters would mean/imply nothing to most modern day audiences who seem to need to have the full gory details spelt out in front of them in slow-motion, HD, 3-D, close up, in short scene, and in multi-replay from as many angles as possible (and some that are probably impossible too), as many seem to lack the imagination to conjur up such images themselves… maybe its because fewer people read books, and have perhaps lost the art of imagination/visualisation of a scene. Why force people to imagine a scene when CGI and special effects can do it for them, so that it loks like the scenes they have witnessed ont heir computer game screen.

I haven’t watched ‘Saving Private Ryan’ in full, but I have seen the opening scenes a few times, and they do seem to portray the absolute and utter horror of the Normandy beaches well… the scope of those scenes is vast, and it is that fact that makes them stand out for me far more than if the opening scenes had focussed closely on the key players’ part in the landings.

While visiting Bletchley Park I have clearly overheard visitors telling each other that the anels explaining the first capture of Enigma machines are incorrect, because BP displays say it was RN personnel who captured it first, but the visitors ‘know‘ it was first captured by USN because they ‘remember seeing it “on TV” somewhere…‘ And I’ve heard that sort of comment from both Brits and Americans looking at the display :-O

I fear the boundaries between entertainment and documentary have become so blurred that for most non-enthusiasts they remember and believe a mish-mash of both… and that becomes their perception of “the truth”. As we lose direct contact with those who took part in WW2 battles etc, I suspect we will see the “truth” largely superseded by a populalry accepted ‘pseudo-truth’ based on half-remembered documentaries, dramatisations and outright fiction…

While that gradual move may upset historians and those with specialist knowldge and/or interest in a period or subject, for most people it will just be part of the accepted “norm”. After all, is our perceptions of, say, The Battle of Trafalgar, or of Hastings or Agincourt really correct, or have they too been subtely diluted over time, to become part-true, part-mythical, versions of what really happened?

….and any kitchen cleaning or whatever is done after that .Staff hours should take this into account ( everyone gets paid to closing time plus whatever cleanup takes.)

All well and good if staff are PAID and subject to an agreed post-closure “clearing up” time as part of their contracted, paid, working hours, but as volunteers, staff may not be being paid to run the shop/museum.

If the attendant involved was unpaid, knew the site was empty, and perhaps had a pressing engagement elsewhere after leaving ‘work’, then I am sure many of us may also have been tempted to wind things up a little early – unless the NAM shop has a history of “last minute shoppers” pitching up.

However, even if shop had been closed (i.e. till cashed-up and credit-card machine logged off), there was perhaps the opportunity for the volunteer to explain the situation, and may potentially(?) have been the opportunity of agreeing to consider a ‘last minute’ purchase as a ‘cash-only’ transaction, which the attendant could have handled, and then left the payment in a safe place with a note left for following morning’s staff that the sale be processed through the till the following day to keep books and stocks square etc…

If the volunteer was as brusque as stated, and offerred no expanation as to why the shop was not accessible, then he has done little to help the museum’s image, in that he hasn’t tried to offer a fairly obvious solution that while being less then ideal for both parties, might have resulted in a better outcome for both too.

I’d agree that ‘professional’ shops/businesses should operate to their displayed opening hours, but that if soemthing runs as part of a voluntary organisation, with unpaid staff, then perhaps last minute customers might be a little more understanding if the enterprise wind up a little earlier, especially in “low season”.

I’d agree that if NAM website now shows shop closes earlier than the site as a whole, then thas fine, but it should be stressed to staff (paid staff, or unpaid volunteers) that they must not start “cashing-up” before the (new) stated closure time…

Just to say, I/we visited NAM in the summer, and found the museum well organised, and staff very helpful. Keep u the good work!

…a 45 year study of physically reading and logging of the plate details leaves no reason for doubt in this case.

Maybe you need to ‘get out’ a bit more Mark, some might say you are a bit too much of an anorak especially where Spitfires are concerned …. :highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused:)

Is there anything you don’t know about the examples that are still around…? (And no,I’m not going anywhere near asking about THAT Spitfire project

Still, it’s just as well there are a number of aviation “anoraks” around with detailled knowledge of their own pet type who are happy to help us lesser mortals when we ask.

Now look what the local press has turned up.

Proper journalism for once

Moggy

If that is all true then it is pretty damning, and suggests KCC may not have done detailled research into the entity that is buying the airport. Unfortunately it wouldn’t be the first time a local council was found to have been a little less than thorough in its research, and have backed the wrong horse in a race.

Perhaps they (KCC) were dazzled by the promise of lots of new jobs/new businesses in the area, and were so impressed by a slick presentations that they didn’t check there was any real substance behind it.

And, ultimately, as the airport is private property and not (so far as I understand it) a KCC owned amenity to sell, they have little say in the transaction. They can recommend or support one bid more than another, but beyond that they are not really involved (are they?).

It’s essentially a private deal beyond the remit of KCC, all KCC can do is try to help ‘facilitiate’ it by making the right noises if asked by the bidders about possible planning proposals, redevelopment etc. Given the public concern over the sale and future employment etc KCC will probably have been trying to put positive “spin” on the deal given the unemployment in the Thanet area, rather than checking whether the bidder had the track record to deliver on those (somewhat vague) promises anyway.

Of course, the press report in the link does seem to show some dealings that were not widely publicised, but that were presumably in the public domain if you knew which stones to look under, and that some people may have been (ahem) economical with the info they gave out, but I suspect no-one has done anything illegal – I imagine the “suits” involved would have been clever enough to employ sufficient legal talent to ensure they (just) stayed on the right side of the law at each stage.

Doesn’t exactly cover the bankers involved, the potential purchasers themselves, nor others named in the deal in glory though does it, and KCC may end up looking less than fully competent to help facilitate such a major deal on “their patch”.

What worries me more is that the purchaser is the same bunch who took over the old Pfizer site at Sandwich…surely it can’t be good to allow the same developer to take over two major chunks of real estate so close together – but I guess that goes back to my point that KCC are not really involved as such, neither Pfizer nor Manston sites were/are theirs to sell, KCC are essentially only onlookers, albeit with an interest in that they would (presumably) hope to see the sites’ new owners bring employment and skills into Thanet?

And of course, if the deal(s) ever fell over, or the site(s) ended up being part of a failed business, KCC would probably end up having to step in and bail out various parties affected by the failure, while assorted “suits” faded quietly into the background, no doubt without having lost any of their own cash along the way…. twas always thus…:apologetic: