What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,517 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
Hi Ian
If you wouldn't mind, would you provide us with the link to the kit you purchased? If not the link, the name of the kit?
That information may prove quite helpful to us, so that we can better help you. We will know and understand exactly what you have. Makes our task easier.
Further, a future enthusiast may have the same kit, with similar issues, and so just find the solution.
Thanks in advance Ian.
Bee
-
Deem
High Voltage Spikes.
Reports on this very forum of up to 3x expected voltage In voltage spikes.
Sudden death as components let all the magic smoke out.
Bee
-
The expected "season" has been removed from the ordering page.
https://uk.hornby.com/products/lmr-coach-pack-wellington-globe-queen-adelaides-coach-era-1-r40357
It has been my experience that this portends imminent arrival.
When this was first announced in Jan 2023, the arrival date was Summer 2023, which shifted nearly immediately to Summer 2024. Clerical error?
In July 2023, it moved to the Spring of 2024.
In January this year, it was back to Summer 2024.
In April 2024, it shifted all the way to Winter 24/25.
Whew.
After all that, its the original date ignoring the clerical error.
In any event, its nearly here??
Bee
-
With Martyn's stated strategy of announcing closer to selling, a status page may be obviated.
Bee
-
We are in agreement Three Link.
While the forum is a great place to exchange ideas, sometimes communication can be stilted. Its all too easy to be misunderstood or, especially in my case, communicate poorly.
Thank you for continuing the conversation.
Here is a major update to the CAD model of Twin Sisters. I have been unhappy with the Markits crosshead. Once I made the pistons and cylinders to scale, the Markits part just looks too big
I decided to make my own. Firstly, because the interference with the connecting rod and the crosshead bars forced an unnecessary compromise. They were coplanar and they banged into each other. Secondly, because I could make a smaller one. I will use 0.5 mm rod for the crosshead bars and 1.5mm OD tube for the crosshead itself. This will provide a rattle fit of 0.008" on all sides of the crosshead rods. If I attempt 1.0mm OD tube, the buildup of tolerance would likely bind the entire assembly.
I've added in the support for the crosshead rods, extending the cylinder support plate to do so. This makes mechanical sense, as the lower rod support would not be mounted on a flimsy fender, but rather held on the same plate to retain crosshead rod integrity.
Further, the connecting rod is out of plane from the crosshead, just as Stephenson did, eliminating any compromise in support.
I am a much happier camper!
Bee
-
1
-
-
Fair Point NTP.
I certainly do not know what Ian bought or how it is configured.
He did state the LEDs lit when batteries applied. Based on the kind of responses Ian provided, I am unsure that he acknowledged polarity in application. Hence why I assumed the rectifier was on the strip. But yes, bad assumption
Bee
-
-
Bridge rectifier is likely a part of the LED strip Ian.
It is entirely possible, given that the live/insulated axle wheel configuration was unknown, that you simply have one axle non-reversed as required. That power flows from A to A, not from A to B.
Bee
-
Hello Ian
Slow down!
Suppose two metal wheels with a metal axle was in place. That would be a dead short. Like putting a wire from one rail to the other.
Consequently, one wheel must be insulated from the rail, and one must not. In this way, power comes from rail A, through the wheel and to the axle. That is where your spring is.
After coming down from the led strip, it goes to ANOTHER axle. From there to the wheel and down to rail B.
It will not do to have power come up from rail A and down to rail A. Power must flow from A to B. So of the two axles, the live wheel must be on opposite sides.
You can do this sir. Slow down. Think about what is happening and you will see it.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Without Twin Sisters, the LMR would have been grossly delayed. I did not mean to diminish it. Heck, I'm building it because I admire it.
In mentioning Stanier, the implication was that those early pioneers were the giants, inventing an industry from whole cloth. Stanier could not improve a design that did not exist.
The early pioneers were concerned with efficiency and hence the reason why the fuel was weighed both before and after their run at Rainhill. Indeed, why Stephenson and Wood used a Dynamometer (see my yellow avatar Stephenson's Dynamometer) to measure retarding friction. Twin Sisters was inefficient, as was noted by the LMR. It was broken up December 1831, 15 months after Opening, unsuitable for nearly any operation.
Bee
-
Ian
You need a complete circuit. Power must come from one rail, flow through all the components including the LEDs and down to the other rail.
When testing for continuity, you are measuring resistance. Ohms of resistance. If you measure 0 ohms, that means no resistance or a good connection. If there is a large resistance, electricity will not flow, that would be bad.
Check. Wheel to axle. Axle to internal LED connections. Etc Step by step
Bee
-
Hi Dukedog
Thank you for separating out the layers. It helps me to understand what is presented.
What follows is merely an opinion from the cheap seats, the ones all the way in the back. Feel free to utterly disregard anything I offer. This is just what I observe.
The top and bottom layers have no interchange. Thats okay, of course. It is your layout. Yet the top layer offers little more beyond that which the bottom layer already provides. When we ignore the interior track work, both are two large loops. If you want to watch trains go by, set the point work to non-diverging on the bottom layer and let them run.
All of the interactive play is in the bottom layer. The lazy 8 track, with two back to back Y points (why not double slip?) offers the ability to send the trains here and there. I like that a lot. It offers nice potential. Scheduling and decision making in the offing.
Placing the double cross-over right within the context of the wye offers an interesting interchange. As you have pointed out yourself, the tracks don't actually join there, the points are over layed in software. Before committing to actual track, I'd make sure that it really does connect properly. If you run into difficulty, then move the double cross over elsewhere on the loop. It is a feature all on its own and provides its own interactive nature. Don't lose it, perhaps move it.
The three track yard is an industry. You need a second yard somewhere else, providing your freight trains something to do. They pick up in yard A and move it to yard B. You set the route and perform the delivery. Interacting with the layout instead of watching trains go by. Along those lines, you have plenty of room for two passenger terminals, to increase the interaction.
Some things I am not overjoyed with (the part you get to freely ignore).
1)No storage / fiddle yard? You must intend on keeping extra rolling stock and locomotives off layout, perhaps in a cabinet. Make sure that the room layout includes that cabinet space and reasonable (for you) access to the cabinet.
2) The top layer obstructs the view of the interactive bottom layer. If it were me, and it decidedly is not, I would entirely skip the top layer. Needless extra work for little extra play. If you really want two layers, connect via inclines and make sure you can still see the bottom layer to interact with it.
3) Derailments happen. Derailments in the center of the layout are going to be reasonably hard to reach. Count on the derailment to occur in the least accessible portion. May I ask the scale? N, TT, OO or O? What size is the square on your grid?
4) I assumed OO and that the grid squares are 50mm. A hilariously bad idea. But in doing so, realized that some of the curves appear below R2 or 438 mm. Most kit is targeted at a radius of 438 mm. If you intend longer stock , you need to relax those curves, or run small locomotives
5) the track separation between tracks appears less than recommended. Long stock will over hang and collide with long stock on the other track in those curves.
6) Once you have a sense of the style and interaction within the layout, make sure that all the pieces connect without violation, within the software. Remember the 6 P's of Engineering: Prior planning prevents poor performance. [joke: there are only 5, proving the point]
That's entirely too much. I will stop now.
Bee
-
21 hours ago, threelink said:
I imagine that Stephenson will have been very familiar with furnaces of the day and may have experimented with their application on locos.
Accurate assessment.
The foundational document of Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd is signed by four individuals
The first two will need no introduction. Take a careful look, these are authentic signatures, the document dated 23 June 1823.
The next signature is Edward Pease. He was the main promoter of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. His biography is quite impressive, Google away!
The last one is Michael Longridge, co-owner of the Bedlington Iron Works. With his engineer, Birkinshaw, the developer of wrought iron fish belly rails. With decades of experience by 1823. Supplier to the Stockton and Darlington Railway as well as the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
So absolutely, yes, a Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd principal knew a thing or two about furnaces!
The Twin Sisters boiler is wildly inefficient. Without firetubes, the heating surface is limited to the conical area within the firebox. Most of the heat shoots straight up the chimney. It is hard to examine Twin Sisters without the lens of two centuries of knowledge.
It is one thing to polish a design, when a vast body of emperical data exists. Engineers like Stanier could stand on the shoulders the giants who came before. A tip of the cap to that type engineer, one who squeezes a bit more efficiency out of an existing design. Much harder than it looks.
The early days did not have that body of data. What worked? What didn't? What was efficient? Who knew anything. No wonder Rocket overcame San Pariel. The Booth firetubes were remarkably efficient compared to the return flue. Twin Sisters didn't even have a return flue. Essentially a teakettle in a fireplace.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Dukedog
I can see two apparent crossovers on the left side, top and bottom corners of your plan. There is no denotation of a diamond crossing in either spot.
I suspect these tracks are actually on different levels.
Can you split out the levels for examination?
Bee
-
1
-
-
Make the double slip fixed polarity.
The four lines that lead into it must all be isolated on both ends. The four lines that lead into it are supplied by auto-reversers.
Sorted
Bee
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Too Tall said:
Now I best get myself braced for when the finance minister finds out 😳
Run!!! Save yourself!! 🤣
Nice haul Too Tall
Bee
-
1
-
-
Can we get some imagery of the two connectors that make up the pair?
In situ, in the connected position.
Disconnected, so the mating electrical connections can be observed.
Does this connector pair also serve as the draw bar? That is, is force applied by running the locomotive with a consist, trying to pull the connector open? If yes, is there any mechanical detent to protect the electrical connection from being broken?
There are a bunch of really sharp lads about. Its worth an examination. Might be a simple fix.
Bee
-
Hello Ian
We've not spoken before, so welcome aboard!
You are describing a continuity problem. That is, there is no path from the track to the LED strip. Somewhere, there is an open.
9v batteries are fine for go/no go solutions.
What you really want or need is a digital multimeter. For your purposes, nearly any one will do.
Set the multimeter to measure resistance (Ω) and test part by part, to find the open. Place one probe on the metal tire of the wheel, say, and the other on the axle. The meter will likely read 0 ohms, meaning its closed or shorted. That's good in our situation. Alternatively, it could read infinite ohms, meaning no continuity or open. Viola! You have found the offender.
Using the multimeter carefully, component by component, and you will find the exact faulty connection. Should not take terribly long either. Even with learning your new multimeter, it should be under 1 hour. Once you know which component, it should not be hard to spot the issue.
The battery just says its working, not working. But which part?
Get a multimeter.
Bee
-
I totally agree. Charging the fire through the chimney is very strange indeed. How can fuel be added through the firetubes? Answer: there were no firetubes! Henry Booth famously suggests firetubes for Rocket at the Rainhill Trials. Twin Sisters predates Rocket. Indeed, competitor San Pariel was a return flue boiler, sans tubes.
So how can we be sure the fuel was added via the chimney? The newspaper report is indisputable.
"There are two chimneys, through the sides of which openings are left to throw in the fuel."
Verbatim Quote¹There may have been other uses as you suggest, but this was the reported use. That same newspaper report states that
"...having a conical tube passing up through the centre of the boiler..."
There must be a grate on the bottom of that conical tube, so as to support the coke while it burns and to permit air to flow into that conical tube. Otherwise, the conical tube has a sealed bottom, only open to the chimney. That will make it hard to sustain a fire.
My purely speculative cut away sketch of a Twin Sisters boiler
We have a cutaway of a vertical boiler in Janvier 1838, which does include firetubes.
Bee
¹ I did not record the name of the newspaper, thinking that the website would retain free access to the data. Liverpool Albion? It is now behind a paywall. I did capture the image, read the entire report here
-
2
-
-
Disappointing @sir johnbut Hornby will sort this. Please do keep us posted.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Hello ThreeLink
I am pleased that you find the chimney doors as I do. I was very excited to find them, as we know they existed. Such an odd feature.
As to the height, I was trying to portray an upper limit. Perhaps that wasn't clear. That the door could be no higher than head height. I fully agree that the doors should be lower, to facilitate use. How much lower? It depends on how much credence we apply to the height of the footplates drawn by Shaw, noting that the Stephenson drawing shows only the mechanicals, not any body work.
I too have noticed the tool. For the benefit of others
I suggest that we see the top, because an engineman would place the tool with the handle up, for convenience. I make it to be a T-Handle.It is a long tool. Based on orientation and placement, it very likely extends completely across the cavity. How long? Ask Shaw.
We do not see the working end of the tool. It could be a shovel. I make it to be a tool to poke the fire, through the door, which is entirely speculative.
As to loading fuel through the door, as specified by the press? There are two doors, and the solution would likely be the same for both. Certainly, a long shovel could reach the tender and the door nearest the tender, but what of the door between the cylinders? That doesn't work. I would propose a bucket of fuel, placed on the top of the boiler by the chimney door. An engineman would simply pick up a lump and 'throw it in', as stated in the press. Poking the fire with the long tool. Again, entirely speculative.
About the perspective and scaling issues? Its all wrong, and I have noted this throughout this thread as well. For example: length. Twin Sisters has 3 axles of 4 foot wheels. The absolute minimum is that Twin Sisters is 12 feet long. Yet the tender is drawn equally as long. This is the barrel tender of the period, built on the common utility waggon. Simply put, no, its not that long.
Your solution makes sense. The axles were sprung and this could upset the balance. Reasonable and logical. The tender could be out of level based on load.
I do agree that the sketch could have been drawn in different places or at different times. This could just be a working sketch, in preparation for a more carefully drawn subsequent presentation, a known practice of artists. Certainly, Twin Sisters was a unique engine, and as Three Link points out, the entire railway was novel. It may have confused Shaw, who perhaps only had a small time frame to make the sketch. We really will never know. I accept the Shaw sketch for design cues and thank the heavens for the mechanical drawing in the Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd archives.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Whoops! I didn't read carefully enough Brew Man. Hard clamping the rod for the points may not be desired.
Bee
-
Commercial production would use a form to bend the handrail repetitively. The price of that form, to include the engineering, would dwarf the price of any kit we could possibly purchase.
You guys are too hard on yourselves
Bee
-
Alternatively, add a tiny swatch of translucent film, as a filter, right in the firebox door opening.
Think of it as sunglasses for your locomotive.
Cut to the right size, test for brightness, adding another layer or changing opacity to suit.
Affix with a dab or two of superglue
Bee
Fixing the coupling on my newish City Of London (R3997)
in General Discussion
Posted
If it was missing from the box, new from Hornby, just contact them. Customer Service will take care of this problem.
Bee