What About The Bee

The entirety of the problem is as simple as can be. Standards, as in, it would have been nice to have some. CWT is either 100 lbs or 112 lbs. This varied geographically within the UK. For the LMR this was 112 lbs. A ton has three definitions of measure. This makes the unadorned word "ton" to be functionally useless as a unit of measure. Long (Imperial) ton, short ton or metric ton; please be specific. As to the gross or tare weight, for the early LMR, the gross tonnage limit was 4 tons. I think that was a 2000 lbs ton but cannot be sure. It could have been the imperial ton at 2240 lbs. I know there was a railway scale near the pig station by Manchester. As specified, it was a gross limit. Everything was included. I think the question requires quite a bit more definition 81F. Just the arithmetic part of your question has 6 different answers, depending upon which ton and which CWT. Maybe you can dispense with a metric ton, but that merely reduces the quantity of solutions to four. When it comes to the limits painted on the side, you should know the exact railway practice for the era. Bee

That's really good JJ! Well done! Bee

This is a multi-part update. The first part is how to engineer a wheel clip to hold a pinpoint axle. If that isn't your thing, feel free to skip onwards to Part 2. Part 1: Elongation at Break In a previous post, I discussed the the modulus of elasticity and other mechanical engineering criteria to determine if the yellow wheel clip block would break under the insertion force. Shapeways also offers a different data point, which represents a simpler way¹ to calculate if the wheel clip will break. The data point specified is Elongation At Break. For fine detail plastic, the EAB is a mere 4%. That is, if the material is elongated by 4% or more by bending, it ruptures. When you examine bending, one of the first things you will note is that the outside of the bend is elongated and the inside of the bend is compressed. The neutral axis is in the geometric center of those two. Material is neither elongated nor compressed at the neutral axis. It remains the same length. Fundamentally then, it is straightforward to obtain the arc length of the neutral axis (because it remains unchanged) and the arc length of the elongated surface (outside of the bend). Divide the elongated arc length by the neutral axis arc length to yield a ratio. Subtract 1 and multiply by 100 to get a percentage to compare to the EAB. This inevitably brings us to the hinge. Hornby Era 1 rolling stock has a very clear hinge. Look at your model from the buffer end, along the side. Notice that the spot immediately below the chassis is quite thin, with the horn block and horn block guides substantially thicker just below. The hinge is right there, in plain sight, but if only you know where to look. I've installed a hinge into my model. You can clearly see it just above the wheel set. It is the narrow section, with curves (fillets) above and below to eliminate stress concentrations. You will recall the insertion interference shown in this diagram. This interference forces the horn guides outwards. With the interference greatly exaggerated, we will get the horn guides to deform to the shape of the red lines. Take a moment to examine this diagram. As the axle is pressed in, the horn guide is forced outwards. Just as the red lines show. I have shown, in this diagram, both the arc along the neutral axis, as well as the arc along the path of maximum elongation, at the outer surface of the material. Given the amount of interference during insertion, I can obtain the radius and angle subtended for both those curves, and thus compute the respective arc lengths. With two arc lengths forming a ratio, the percentage of elongation is obtained. Voila! Compare the percentage of elongation to the percentage Elongation At Break, to see if a hinge ruptures, or not. I still have not presented my design numbers. Yet given my current parameters, and the analysis presented above, I obtain less than 1% Elongation At Break, and fine detail plastic defined as 4% EAB. In other words, the wheel set should insert without breakage. The predominant criteria are: 1) the insertion interference. This should be minimized. The smaller the better, accounting for axle length tolerance. 2) the hinge thickness. As the distance between the neutral axis and the elongation surface increases, the elongation ratio increases; without changing any other parameter. The thickness of the hinge should be minimized. Thick hinges are a no-no. The Hornby hinge thickness, as a point of reference, measures 1.3 mm. This makes the distance from neutral axis to elongation at 0.65 mm. I will update this with numbers when a complete solution, including successful empirical test, is found. Part 2: Current State of the Model Swingback chairs now have a functional swingback. To paraphrase the Liverpool Albion, the rail will turn over on my model, in yellow. I carefully examined the images for any evidence of the swingbacks. If the rail came up much above the top of the carriage's shell, we should be able to see the diagonal members supporting the rail. We do not. Thus, the swingback is fairly low relative to the shell. Further with the top of the shell at waistline, the swingback was only lower back support, it did not reach shoulder blades. The chair is pure speculation on my part. Based on the tops of passenger thighs, I have a seat height. How the swingback was made, the chair supports, & etc is all just guesswork. Many images of this carriage present the shell with frame and panel construction. Getting the concentric elliptical frames was an interesting challenge. Part 3: About passenger capacity. As this was a very early carriage, it was subject to the early weight limit. 4 tons. Even the locomotives were subject to this limit². Therefore, this carriage must have complied with the 4 ton limit. If we permit back to back seating, as some illustrations show, then the passenger capacity is 48 passengers. 5 benches of back to back, 4 abreast or 40 passengers plus the two end benches at 4 each, for a grand total of 48. The carriage itself was included in this weight limit. Assign an arbitrary weight to the carriage, say 1500 pounds. The remainder, therefore, is 3¼ tons. 3¼ tons / 48 passengers is 135 pounds each. A value too small for the average weight of a member of the public. If I restrict the passenger capacity to 28 for the swingback church pew carriage, as originally estimated, the average passenger can weigh 232 pounds.³ Far, far more reasonable. Part 4: But what about those images with back to back passengers? The 4 ton weight limit was only for the very earliest of days. The rail in use was of the fishbelly type, 35 lbs to the yard. This was clearly inadequate. As early as 1832, broken rails were reported throughout the LMR. By 1833, rail was 50 lbs per yard. Whilst fishbelly rail was judged to be stronger (and it was, with yet another nod to beam theory), parallel rail was far more convenient for curves, points & etc, not requiring chairs at specific locations. By 1837, rail as heavy as 70 lbs to the yard was in use in certain parts of the line. The Lime Street Tunnel, the main terminus in Liverpool, was laid in 60 lb rail. With the heavier rail came an increase in weight limits. Perhaps the 48 passenger was acceptable. Perhaps the swingback chairs became fixed, with a paltry 7½ shelf to rest passengers on, back to back. The images certainly suggest so. Which leads me to the speculative conclusion that there were two separate and unique carriages. The first carriage type being the one with the low canopy, definitely with swingback seating. The second appears to have dispensed with the swingback seating in favor of back to back seating, and a far more logical distribution of circular openings in the canopy, with one per door. Bee ¹does not require extensive knowledge of beam theory. It does involve fairly complex geometry, especially as the beam is to flex under various insertion interferences, so as to measure angles and radius. ²The concern was wear of wheels and rail. Further, rails deflect under load (more beam theory) leading to locomotive inefficiency. We even have Professor Barlow's "Deflectometer" for measuring the instantaneous and maximum deflection of rail. The thumb screw is brought into light contact with the underside of the rail. With zero established, any downward deflection of the rail is magnified on the scale, the maximum recorded by the sliding member. ³The ubiquitous blue 2nd carriages held 24 passengers. This permits 270 pounds a passenger, or far more likely, an increase in the weight of the carriage itself.

Looking good 81F! Bee

Kadee offers a dealer locator https://www.kadee.com/store-locator/ According to that, there are 26 dealers in the UK, sadly one is Hattons. Another 50 odd in other parts of Europe. Yes, there are bulk packs. And if all else fails, I suspect that you can order direct from Kadee. Bee

Hornby wrote: The Group's direct-to-consumer sales continue to increase strongly, at 18% ahead of last year I do hope that with this increase, the accuracy of on-line content improves, given that the on-line presence is the store. Bee

The wires from the controller to the track need not be heavy. For now, most anything will do. Just keep them reasonably short (under 2 feet or so). Extremely fine wires act like resistors. Check your guide for feeder wires. Those will do Your lad will want to be close to his locomotive anyway. So short wires aren't a problem in the early going Bee

Just a guess JJ, but possibly the base of a mile marker for the railway. The number being the mile number. Bee

Hello @DecemberWinter165432 Welcome Aboard! The manual 96RAF presented is comprehensive. It has the answers to your questions, but the answers are mixed in with all the other information. I will suggest you stay analog for the early going, as this is less expensive. Get the train moving and see how it goes. As the enthusiasm builds, you may wish to transition to digital, for better control. Or, its a flop and you kept expense to a minimum. Now for analog, or DC, two wires will go to the track, one for each rail. The track is therefore an extension of the wires. The motor in the locomotive simply responds to electricity provided in those wires. How much? The dial on the controller. This works just like an electrical fan you plug into the wall. You control the speed of the fan with the dial on the fan. In DC, the dial is on the controller, the motor is in the locomotive. Independent control of multiple locomotives in DC can be challenging. Two electrically independent loops means two independently controlled locomotives. That is the path most take early on. And then they want a cross over and the fun begins!! Do remember: we are here to help you. Do not hesitate to ask! Bee

Hi LT&SR_NSE Yes, indeed. There are quite a few multi-part solutions available. I did consider the two halves solution. It will certainly function and so I have not rejected it. My thought is to walk down the well trodden path that Hornby uses, to wit: socket and groove. It is simplicity itself, with the complexity in the materials science and mechanical engineering. How far can I deform a shape, without permanently deformation (yield). That is, will it spring back, or have I changed its shape. In some materials, yield is much lower than rupture (ultimate yield). In others, it is not and the material breaks. In the case of fine detail plastic, the material is relatively stiff, so there is little deformation before yield. Yield is close to ultimate yield, meaning it shatters. It is not an ideal candidate for the socket and groove. It might be made to function with fine detail plastic, but control of parameters is required. Its an interesting problem. One that I hope to resolve! Bee

Thanks 81F, I will study this response. I have been looking at the elasticity numbers in the materials section, in a combined materials model. Axle bearings one material, carriage body fine detail plastic. Bee

I waited a few days, so as to illustrate the point a bit more clearly. ÷÷÷÷÷÷ Suppose I say: My comment was in regards to the format, not the content. Who am I replying to? If you have been reading this thread in detail, you may know. Yet a casual reader would not. I occasionally encounter this behavior here. A comment that seems disconnected, an ambiguous response. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Suppose I say: @Aussie Fredmy comment was in regards to the format, not the content. Okay, it is clear I am addressing Fred, but what am I discussing? Its unclear. You could go back and re-read the thread, looking for what Fred said. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Suppose I say: And I reply with @Aussie Fredmy comment was in regards to the format, not the content. So now, with the quoted snippet, not only does Fred know he is being addressed, but Fred can also know the meaning of the response. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ I could take this one step further, placing my reference to the Reddit tree structure of comments, then Fred's statement and my response. But I will hold off on the dreadfully obvious. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Finally, my apologies Aussie Fred, for using you as a strawman. I do understand your point about Reddit. It is indeed filled with nonsense. Please do not take any umbrage with my remarks here. The intention is to illustrate addressing individuals and quoting, not to conflate your statement. Thank you for your understanding Bee

Making the chassis has two parts. Part 1 is the artistry of horn guides, horn blocks, springs, buffers and the like. I do believe that part 1 is just judgment and artistry. The only critical nature is that it is representative of the carriage. I must only satisfy myself in this representation, so this really isn't a worry. Part 2 is the pinpoint axle and pinpoint socket bearings. This is a geometric issue. If I get the geometry wrong, the carriage may not function at all. It may function but track crazily. It may ride tilted or askew. The first thing to consider are the lengths. In image 1, observe the length of the axle and the bearing distance between the bases of the pinpoint sockets. It should be clear to you that the axle length should be long enough to extend into the pinpoint sockets on both sides, but not be longer than the bearing distance. If too long, it binds. If too short, it may fall out or permit the axle to take an angle to the block, creating that tilted carriage. In image 2, I have placed the point of the axle into the point of the socket in the pinpoint bearing on the right. Without a groove, it can be observed that to force the axle into the other socket, the block must flex quite a bit. There is also the issue of the pinpoint of the axle interfering with the bearing socket, because the angle of the socket is too shallow. I could never achieve this position without bending the axle or shattering the bearing socket. In Image 3, I have added a groove. The first thing of note is that the axle is much closer to insertion. There is angular clearance for the pinpoint axle. Keeping the angle of the pinpoint socket close to the angle of the pinpoint axle minimizes skew and tilt. In image 4, the critical interference is shown. The axle is just a tiny bit longer than the insertion distance. This only requires a tiny bit of block flex to enter. There must be a tiny bit of interference, otherwise if the axle is too short, it may fall out. In image 5, the axle is in place. Observe that the axle is just shorter than the bearing distance. The angles are fairly close. This is the goal position. With these requirements in mind, I am determined to use a closely matched pair of wheel sets. The axle length is within 0.010 mm of each other. They are on hand. I expect these to be the experimental set, to see if my design criteria is acceptable. I intend to print the yellow block and test. With a set of working criteria, I can easily redesign to Hornby wheelsets for future carriages. With part 2 off to Shapeways, I can go back to part one, leaving the inside of the block blank, until the experiment is complete. I am not saying "this is how to do it". I am saying "this is what I did". Further, until I have a pinpoint wheel set functioning in a pinpoint block, there will be no numerical values to what you are seeing here. I will update these when I do have a working model. Bee

Hi Trainman You can do a continuity check from the wheels to the wires at the tender interface. These will be your pickups. Then do the same from the tender wheels to the wires at the tender interface. Keep the same side wheels with same side continuity. Bee

I've got the width at the top of the elliptical openings at just over 24 scale inches (0.622 meters) and the solid between the openings, where the seats reside, at just over 15 scale inches (0.395 meters). The depth of the seat is shallower than the depth of modern seats. If it is back to back seating, each passenger gets 7½ inches. Cramped isn't the word. You are correct. It is about ⅓ longer. This image, by Shaw, takes the two carriages from one consist. With pixel addresses, I get the chassis at 1.27 times longer which is very close indeed to ⅓. You will also note, in the upper left hand corner, how low the canopy is on the swingback church pew carriage. Exactly as Shaw drew it. That is a difficulty I have yet to resolve. The "seat" is somehow attached to the endplate. When all the swingbacks are arranged so that passengers face to the left of the image (as shown), the last opening on the right is wide open. A shallow seat could be in that rightmost compartment and still provide leg room. Yet if there were passengers on the endplate on the left, all those passengers in the left "compartment" will have cramped leg room. Now flip the swingbacks over. All the passengers in swingbacks face right. The opening on the left is free, and the cramped area would be on the right. Perhaps it is a shallow folding bench on each end? Folded into position for use but only when suitable? I have not addressed this in the model. Sharp eye there @81F I do think the design is symmetric. It almost begs to be by the description in the Liverpool Albion. My comments about the purpose of the cutouts are also entirely speculative. The entire thing is confused. Later depictions, not by Shaw, show one cutout per opening, but the canopy is too high. Shaw shows this weird arrangement and the canopy is incredibly low. We only have a handful of primary depictions of the Swingback Church Pew type. Canopies were installed starting in 1832, but this carriage type was fielded starting in 1829. A canopy on this carriage type was therefore an afterthought by the LMR. Ackermann published this Shaw drawing in 1833, but the drawing could easily have been created in 1832. Perhaps the cutouts are a function of early experimentation. I'm not sure we will ever have a definitive answer to the purpose of the cutouts, just these handful of strange depictions. Bee