What About The Bee

Crank pins can be installed at an angle, not perpendicular to the surface of the wheel. This would cause binding in the rods. Which in turn can cause the motor to apply force without motion and therefore hum. So what Going Spare says could easily be a issue. The position of the return crank is critical. Going Spare notes that the strokes are uneven. They should be even. Ease the screw on the return crank, rotating it slightly, and gently nip up the screw. If the stroke is far enough out of true, you may get to a position where all the rods are in line, and thus, which way it goes is down to chance. How to check? Slowly rotate the wheels by hand. Gently wiggle the lubricator rod to see if it can invert when near straight. Just a thought Bee

Ah, I see the difficulty now. Excellent question. Part 1: A Hornby Engineer The Hornby Engineer will be using a genuine CAD station. It too will have extraordinary levels of precision. Once the design is complete, the next step is the "reduction to practice". The object is extracted from CAD and placed on drawing sheet. It will typically have side, end and plan views. Tiny details and cross sections may be added for clarity. The HE will then consider the machines and techniques that will be used to make the part. The drawing is provided with detailed dimensions, with that consideration in mind. The nominal will be present, but not to a nanometer. For track, I would guess 2 places (tens of microns), but would not be surprised by 3 (one micron). The tolerance band associated with the dimension is also assigned as a function of the machine. The drawing is presented to manufacturing for production The key takeaway is that the production team references the drawing, not the CAD. They understand that the mathematical purity of CAD is not expected, they only need to conform to the drawing. Materials cost money. Sloppy tolerances are wasteful, as is chasing mindless precision. The production of track for the hobby is a commercial practice. A good Engineer squeezes cost out of a design. Dimensional tolerances on the drawing are selected with the machine and commercial practices in mind. Part 2: SCARM SCARM has no control over the production of parts. Indeed the Hornby parts rule SCARM, not the other way round. SCARM must conform to whatever Hornby, or other track system, says. Hornby could add an R6 radius curve and the SCARM guy will just add it to the library, just as he did for TT:120 track. SCARM need only match the nominal, the only tolerance it cares for is that your tracks join in theory. It could just use two or one places for the dimensions, but the build up of tolerance in the computations will swiftly obviate the utility. The easiest thing for the designer of SCARM is to select floating point variables for calculations. It just so happens that these computations are fairly straightforward and subject to reverse engineering by me. Who could see that coming !? Part 3: Intensify the Conflict This is an engineering phrase. It means to exacerbate the issue. There are some others like "eat the ugliest frog first" but we may discuss that at another time. 🙂 Intensify the conflict: of course, no one will ever use set track for 2800 pieces. But it does exacerbate the issue. If I put 2800 pieces into SCARM, tiny errors in computation are magnified 2800 times! In this case, the intensity reveals the values with certainty. We can see the radius that SCARM uses. The nominal radius that Hornby dictates. Helpful? Bee

Happy to explain LT&SR_NSE, no worries. TL;DR: SCARM uses one value for R2. It is deterministic. The mathematics tell us where points should be, and when I use the correct value, SCARM agrees. When I compare to SCARM using an incorrect radius, SCARM does not agree. Thus, we know the one value it uses. 438 mm. Further, this must agree with the nominal value of the physical track, or it cannot produce layout confirmation, particularly so with lots and lots of pieces. The slightly longer version: This is an advanced mechanical engineering topic. It talks to the relationship between the theoretical aspects of CAD and practical manufacturing. Its a fairly complicated topic, but the over view is presented thusly: SCARM is essentially a simple CAD tool. We pick from a library of preprogrammed parts. We pick R607, for example. We do not specify the radius of that track, we just get that piece of track. The dimensions, like included angle and radius are fixed. So the first thing we must understand is the behavior of SCARM, to see if it is deterministic. Does it use the same value for the angle and radius of R607, each and every time I select that from the library? The short answer is yes, it is deterministic. I can mathematically predict where the endpoint is, to a very high degree of precision, given the inputs from the starting point. It is always the same values, the same endpoint. SCARM uses a singular value for the radius. A singular value for the included angle. R607 is parameterized. The issue of tolerance does not apply for SCARM as it relates to manufacturing. The theoretical track in SCARM must match the nominal, or the accumulation of error could render the program useless. This is a subtle point, but critical to understanding. Suppose I accept a tolerance of 438 mm +/-0.15 mm. In actual practice, there will be a gaussian curve (bell curve) of parts compared to the nominal specification. So some parts could be as low as 437.85, some as high as 438.15. So what should SCARM use? Will it be a random selection for each track piece? Random selection will not work well for 8 sections of R607 arranged in a circle, as the endpoints of 1 and 8 will likely not meet. It's not just the radius that has a tolerance, its also the included angle. SCARM does look at the endpoints of two tracks in close proximity and decides if they can join, or not. If the tracks endpoints are within some distance, SCARM says they will join. A tolerance of join-ability. Afterall, SCARM is to validate your track configuration. For a circle of R607, with 8 segments, the value used in the SCARM library should be at the one value, such that the circle joins. Will it join if you use random angles and radii? Maybe, maybe not. That would be a poor tool indeed. If all the included angles are low, they do not add up to 360°. Will the circle join if you use any one value? Of course it will. SCARM checked our circular layout and all the endpoints connected! How does SCARM relate to the physical parts? So I run out and purchase my 8 pieces of R607. These have true manufacturing tolerance, with that gaussian distribution centered around 438 mm. I connect them up. Even with tiny errors, the tracks will go together. The tiny dog legs will not affect running. As long as the Hornby track is within a manufacturing tolerance, what SCARM tells you will likely go together. Why? Because in the real world, it is extremely unlikely that the errors add up linearly, to give a max build up. As the errors are on both sides of nominal, they tend to cancel the overall error. You must still plan for and account for the extrema, but in all likelihood, it will not be thus. Think it through. What value should SCARM pick for the radius? It cannot be a random distribution around nominal. It cannot be a gaussian distribution about nominal. If I am to pick one value, I should pick the nominal. This will permit SCARM to validate my layout to the highest order of accuracy. It will match. It cannot match if the radius is consistently wrong. Now examine the Wiggle Waggle Railway. I compare two fixed values. They are either R2= 438mm or R2=438.15mm. SCARM could use either one, but which one? Or perhaps another radius. When I accumulate the difference in chord length over multiple segments, the difference is magnified. The error is linearly proportional to the number of segments. It is strictly multiplication. So with SCARM commanded to install 28 curves, it does so. In a deterministic sense. I then tell SCARM I want a new starting point. Of course, I will select a new starting point strictly by the trigonometry and maths. If the new starting point agrees with the old endpoint the track join lines will be perfect. Therefore, what I used for the radius was correct. If there is a gap at the new / old, then the radius I selected is wrong. Easy peasy. Either its 438 or 438.15 mm. And we can immediately see the mathematical answer that agrees with SCARM is 438.00 mm. In the first SCARM experiment, we have perfect agreement with the 438 mm radius. At 438.15, we do not. We confirm this by intensifying the conflict. In the second SCARM experiment, use 28 segments, connected back to back. We see that if I compute an overall length, using 438.15 mm and set the start point, it is off by ⅛". Hold up Bee, you rascally rascal. 28 pieces? That's well below the threshold for the free version of SCARM. What happens when I pay for SCARM and inject 280 segments of R607? The error between the two accumulated chord lengths is 1¼". Remember, the pay version has unlimited components. Suppose I pick 2800 sections of R607. It grows to 12½" or more than a foot!! Yes, I think most anyone would notice that. A one foot gap? Yes, even I might pick up on that minor gap. Intensify the conflict, again. What if I have 28,000 segments of R607? Okay, most would think me daft for such a layout, but the delta is now over 10 feet. That's one heck of a keep alive. SCARM uses one value for R2. It is deterministic. The mathematics tell us where points should be, and when I use the correct value, SCARM agrees. When I compare to SCARM using an incorrect radius, SCARM does not agree. Thus, we know the one value it uses. 438 mm. Further, this must agree with the nominal value of the physical track, or it cannot produce layout confirmation, particularly so with lots and lots of pieces. This should be enough to explain it. If not, ask away. I really do not mind a bit. Bee

The Wiggle Waggle Model Railway is an end to end layout. It consists of 28 sections of R607. 14 will turn to the left, 14 will turn to the right, alternately. Back to back curves, one after the other. R607 is a double radius curve. The included angle is 45° for each. The length of the chord, across the curve is straight forward. Chord Length = 2 * sin(angle/2) * radius If radius = 438 mm, then chord length is 335.230687 mm If the radius is 17¼" (438.15 mm), then the chord length is 335.345492 mm Fairly tiny difference. But here at the WWR, we have 28 of sections, not just 1. Simply multiply each by 28 and find the difference. The difference is now 3.214541 mm (⅛"). I set up the WWR in SCARM. I placed 28 pieces of R607, as described. I then added a start point, as if the radius was 438.15 mm. Here is the result R2 curves are 438 mm, not 438.15 mm (17¼"). Inescapably resolved. This is also a good way to illustrate Build up of Tolerance (Hornby Post) . A tiny error accumulates. Bee

Therein is the crux of the matter. 'Tis not the price, it is the perception of value to the buyer. The buyer decides if there is value and then either pays the price [or not]. Hornby offers an item at a price. It is up to us, the customers, to decide if that price offers value. Inflation is ever present. The current offerings, at their price points, apparently are insufficient to make Hornby profitable. Hornby needs to turn a profit. QED: prices will rise. Bee PS My apologies if I somehow managed to offend you Colin. That was never my intent. I was attempting to illustrate a point and may have meandered over a line that I did not see at the time.

Those old buildings are slathered in pine tar! For my uses, I purchased genuine pine tar, not some cheap knockoff, primarily on the testimony of those buildings. Its part of the advertising campaign. Fungus is the enemy of wood. Fungus needs a few things. An organic material to feed upon (wood), a bit of moisture, oxygen and a hospitable environment. Removing one or more elements inhibits fungus. Pine tar and coal tars/dust are very inhospitable to fungus. No fungus? No rot. Bee

Which is why discussions of price invariably are colored by the perception of value to an individual and their station in life. It is clear that, for many individuals, the prices are too high to fit within their budget. For others, the quality is more important. Perception. Is Hornby profitable? If not, then they must adjust prices to account for this. Hornby is not a charitable institution. It is a profit motivated business. If a price rise inhibits you from purchasing, you have my sympathies, but the world of Hornby does not exist to serve you personally, nor me for that matter. Absolutely. Inflation is a fact of life. And by the way, that will not stop me from typing my little heart out. See you in Sept, 2025. 😁 Bee

As someone who takes his hand built wooden, personal watercraft into the ocean on a regular basis, I can tell you that @ModelerXYZis correct. ½ the year inside storage, ½ the year, outside and at the ready! Its all about the finishes and maintenance. The wooden bilge is saturated with linseed oil and pine tar. The hull is saturated with linseed oil and Le Tonkinois varnish. Control of faying surfaces with a gap filler, such as Dolfinite, is a must. I've had to freshen up the surfaces occasionally, but the wood is in spectacular shape. That toolbox, properly cared for, will last a very long time indeed. What I find interesting about the 1863 locomotive is that is still passes its boiler certification, 160 years on. It almost definitely has had a boiler rebuild, or two over those decades. Anyone know? Bee

Or most any other manufacturer 🤣 Tis a pity the man is so impoverished! One benefit to specialing on a particular railway is that there is no compulsion to buy every bauble under the sun. As tempting as Flying Scotsman SS is, I can resist. Its not LMR. Put SS in Rocket, and I will incur the wrath of the Admiral. Bee

https://community.hornbyhobbies.com/forums/topic/35843-rewind-tri-ang-armatures/?do=findComment&comment=384854 Discussed briefly back in May, yet it wasn't "official". Yet an advertisement by the proprietor certainly is official, Facebook not withstanding. If that was the only proprietor, with over 58 years in business, retirement was long overdue. I wish him a long and happy retirement, puttering around. Bee

Hi LT&SR_NSE This is a fundamental question in manufacturing. Well played! I do not claim to know what Hornby accepts but the tolerance permitted only permits a range around nominal in manufacturing. It does not change the nominal. A specification would be properly written xxx.xx mm +/- y.yy mm. Where xxx.xx is the nominal and y.yy is the tolerance band around nominal. They need not be uniform, thus xxx.xx mm +y.yy mm -z.zz mm. In all my decades in using dimensional specifications, I have yet to see a tolerance of +/- 0.000 mm. It may exist, but will cost a veritable fortune to produce and require a temperature specification as well. As in, what temperature must the object be when measured. The numbers produced by FreeCAD and used in SCARM represent nominal, as shown, because they are the virtual representation. The join line only becomes one when the correct nominal values are used. The nominal dimension is 438.00 mm. Hopefully, this particular discussion clarifies the issue for you Bee

Hello @Gordonvaleand @Going Spare here is the promised SCARM EXPERIMENT and the inescapable result. Controls. I used FreeCAD to obtain arithmetic values. I selected R606 as the curve. R606 has a 22½° angle. I drew two segments of a circle with the same starting point. Both segments were at 22½°. Values All to 1 nanometer. 0.000001 mm. For a radius of 438 mm the endpoints in X,Y are X 167.615343 mm Y 33.340765 mm For a radius of 438.15 mm the endpoints in X,Y are X 167.672746 mm Y 33.352183 mm The distance between the endpoints of the curves is 0.058527 mm SCARM Curves I set an initial start point at X=0 Y=0 and angle A=0. I placed an R606 curve. I then set a start point defined by the geometry for a radius of 438 mm and placed a straight section at that start point. SCARM accepted values to 1 nm. close up Notice that the join between the track segments is one line, indicating a perfect join. I then repeated this, setting the second start point at the geometry defined by a 438.15 mm radius. I placed a straight section at that start point. Notice that the join is TWO lines, indicating that SCARM does not think these tracks join. Conclusion. The delta between endpoints was 0.059 mm (rounded to 1 micron). Scarm noticed this. The delta between 17¼" and 438 mm is 0.150 mm, a larger dimension. The R2 radius that SCARM uses is 438.000 mm, not 438.150 mm. If SCARM did not produce valid set track plans, it would be dispensed with, forthwith. Therefore, Hornby must define R2 as 438.000 mm. There can be no other mathematical solution. Bee

Different strokes for different folks. What appeals to me may not appeal to you and visa versa. There is also a current promotion that is really a raffle. Buy £100 and be entered into a 100,000 point contest. The maths tell me that 100,000 points is worth £1000. But only if I win. Is that an inducement. To some, yes. I think you and I are on the same page. I am induced to buy when I see a product I want AND it has a price that I personally think appropriate. Repeat, what I think appropriate. Not what the carpet boy thinks appropriate. To get back to the original thread, it is the price rise we are discussing. If I see value for a product I want, I will buy it. If I don't, I won't. Bee

Spot on Colin. What appeals to someone else may not appeal to you. If a catalog collector is sitting on the fence about a purchase, perhaps the inducement of a "free" catalog appeals to that person to stop sitting on his wallet. The value of that catalog to me, in the digital age, is zero. The value to the collector? That's another story. My personal view is that Hornby is attempting to generate sales, as they should. Does a price rise induce a buyer? No. But if it is a piece of kit I want, then it will not totally deter me. Then again, I do not need every bauble ever designed Bee

Me too @Peter Stiles

Hi GS I had to resort to trigonometry to get two tracks to "couple" in SCARM. As I recall, it was a very small value but memory is a bad choice for this discussion! I will set up an experiment in SCARM to determine what it thinks the value for R2 is and report back later. I'm in the middle of trying to get OO Twin Sisters to go "round the bend", and it is very tight indeed. The current chassis is just a wee bit too wide, but the motor is inside of the chassis. The motor also has manufacturing tolerances and is a wee bit bigger than claimed (12.06 mm diameter instead of 12.00 mm diameter). A miracle is about to occur! 😄 When in CAD, the tool requires mathematical precision. Its not meaningful or practical, but the numerical computations must resolve themselves or the designer (me) suffers the consequences. My self imposed requirements are to resolve to 1 micron. This is because the volumetric pixel (vixel) was ~0.016³ mm in Shapeways 3D fine plastic prints. That means everything is quantized. As a rule of thumb, design to about an order of magnitude better than the machinery used to create your object, and then place reasonable manufacturing tolerances on it Bee

Hi Going Spare Exactly that. Its not so proprietary, as SCARM and Anyrail, to name a few, can put up precise geometry on screen. SCARM complains about minute misalignment, so it must be using a precise value. A precise value to match what is manufactured. It is just a side interest to understand a bit of the history and public specification Bee

Hi @ColinB This is certainly not a debate over units. It matters not if it is in imperial or metric. The issue is one of standards. You may have heard me muttering about standards before. Some chatter about the barrel size on early tenders, the capacity of chaldrons and about the word "ton" as it relates to mineral waggons. Yet this "standard" is far from that. How can it be a standard if 17¼" is not equal to 438 mm? This standard is far closer to our hobby than some measurememt regarding an actual railway. I would still very much like to know when Hornby dropped imperial units in the spec, and exactly what radius the set track curves really are. Is it 17¼" round to 438 mm but still actually 17¼? Or is it actually 438 mm, precisely? Bee

The panel has that unusual feature as part of the locomotive. If it is to celebrate local history, then presenting the cow catcher seems like a strange choice, unless the local locomotive had one Bee

Hi @nashjuk Welcome Aboard! No one is born knowing how to do this, we all learned how. You can too! To answer your questions The red connector, labeled A B slides in between the sleepers of the track, the copper on top of the red makes contact with the underside of each rail. The battery controller takes TWO 5 volt lantern batteries. The springs on top of the batteries slide into the grooves on the underside of the battery controller. The long rectangular pieces clip on top of the sleepers. These are so you can decouple the locomotive from the cars. But instead of reading about this, why not watch Mr. Snooze show you exactly how! https://youtu.be/hUQBU9FzEq4 Its not the same locomotive, but the controller set up is. When you get tired of buying batteries, you can use a controller powered from mains. We can help with that. The most important thing is to have fun!! Bee