What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
I agree with @LTSR_NSE
We discuss Lendons, Peter's Spares & etc. We discuss all manner of commercial entities. They are all clearly profit motivated, all wish to stay in business.
If an Enthusiast wishes to discuss how their automated level crossing gates are coming along [for example], and they are a known and respected member of the community, I see zero violation.
I also have observed and reported crystal clear violation of this rule. For example, some person decided to advertise his language classes(?) in the middle of the UK night. Reported and Sorted.
When it was observed that @81F has a store, we discussed it. 81F did not promote it. Specifically, I did as did others. That is not a backdoor, full stop. That is the community, talking about a vendor and a respected member of our community.
If Hornby towers decides that any commercial competition may not be mentioned under any circumstances, then @Going Sparewill have little to do, as he cannot refer them to the appropriate spares. That goes for any references to spares or tools on eBay as well.
Bee
-
Agreed Colin.
Many companies state "shipped" when it is ready to be picked up from their loading dock. Not when the shipper has it in their possession.
It's a fine point, I know. But you are spot on
Bee
-
Part of the fun would be the classification of the cars, at least for me. Watching the hump yard work by itself may be fine for exhibition but on a personal layout, I would think operating the hump yard rail network manually to be the thing.
I would set N switches for N classification lines, independent of the number of points. Then each switch fires a group of relays which cause all points from Hill to selected siding to properly configure.
Example: a tank car is about to come over the hump. Press button 4 for siding 4, all tank cars. The points along that path configure for siding 4, leaving the others alone
So backing the cars over the hump is via your controller and selecting sidings is via your panel.
That actually looks to be fun!!
Bee
-
After a bit of conversation with the gentleman, he just wants to know the dc voltage across the rails when your locomotive just sets out in motion.
I pointed out that this is more a measure of your track and the locomotive you select and not really a good measurement of the controller. So many variables. He agrees
He wants very slow constant motion.
Set the slider bar to the second from the left. That is the V with the straight bar over it, meaning DC. The V with the wiggle line is for AC, like the voltage in your wall. The third from left is amperage while the fourth from left is resistance.
The up and down slider selects the range of the measurement. So you would set it for the second one from the top, or 20 volts, because we expect your controller produces less than 20 DC volts.
If you are unsure of what I said, set it and post a picture. I will help you to get the correct setting.
Make sure you put a battery in the voltmeter!!
Touch the red probe to one rail, the black to the other rail. The number you see in the display is the DC volts. Run a train, and measure the rails at different speeds.
Your guy wants to know the voltage when it just starts out. Determine the controller setting that causes motion to start. Then measure like I told you.
You can do this JJ.
Bee
-
1
-
-
When a question is asked and answered, the person posing the question will likely thank those who answered
Aside from typing "You are welcome", it would be nice to have a reaction button that does the same.
It rewards the person who said thanks with reputation points. This also encourages good behavior in all.
Its just a thought
Bee
-
2
-
-
3 coils of wire
6 blobs of solder
Attached on opposing pads on commutator
-
Fair point 96RAF. It was just a concept, not a detailed specification.
I do suppose that the decoder could drive an auxiliary relay (separate board?) that could handle the load. The lighting will be on or off, likely not pulse width modulated. An auxiliary relay would be a sensible choice here.
Bee
-
11 hours ago, ellocoloco said:
Like the OO Ruston 48DS it has a support wagon that also picks up from the track. This is through a conductive magnetic coupling for which I can see plenty of further applications - TT120 Multiple units spring to mind.
The very thought that springs to my mind is coach lighting. No installing a decoder per coach. Have the lighting circuit pass through many cars via this coupling.
One decoder or one magnetic wand for the entire rake.
-
1
-
-
Hornby R920 has 12 insulated rail joiners for £2.99 or £0.25 each when you buy 12
One benefit to not installing irj is that you save £0.50 on the crossover.
There is a hidden safety issue if you do not install insulated rail joiners. Consider, unplug the controller from the wall for the inner loop. Set the points to cross over. Turn the outer loop controller to maximum voltage, so as to test power to the inner loop at full speed. QUESTION: what voltage is present at the plug of the unplugged controller? ANSWER: 220 volts. QUESTION: what amperage is present at the plug of the unplugged controller? ANSWER: less minimal conversion losses, just about the max amperage the plugged in controller can source.
WHY? Voltage is converted down from 220 to 14 at the first controller and back up to 220 at the second (unplugged) controller. In the field, we laughingly called this "Joltage" because that is going to give you a surprising jolt. But it is no laughing matter, this can pack a punch.
÷÷÷÷
Aside from the safety issue, if irj are not installed, changing the points with mismatched polarity will short the track, independent of locomotive location. This may not be an obvious issue to troubleshoot. What happened?
If irj ARE installed and there is a polarity mismatch, the controllers will only short when the locomotive is actually crossing over. This will be easy to troubleshoot, as the problem source will be located betwixt the seat and the controller.
Bee
-
I've had a look at his channel JJ. He appears to be a non-native English speaker. This will make for difficult communication. He is very clearly an intelligent fellow, and his experiments on video are thoughtful.
He appears to be looking for the minimum voltage the controller produces. I asked him "Hello Alex. To clarify, you want the minimum voltage across the terminals, with nothing connected, at half wave?" Check to see if my question is there please. youTube has been deleting my comments of late, apparently I talk too much hahahaha
Once he responds, I can help you to answer his question, and help you to understand a multi meter.
Please take a picture of your multimeter, front and back, and post them here so I can tell you the exact settings.
Bee
-
I will head on over to your channel JJ, so as to understand the individual better
Bee
-
Always so many details to discover.
In the previous post, I didn't include this drawing of Twin Sisters from The Liverpool & Manchester Railway, R.H.G. Thomas, 1980.
It appeared to be from a periodical known as "The Engineer", a non contemporary resource. This attribution was based on the font used, which is quite distinctive. I am always very leary of non period sources and so skipped inclusion.
It turns out that Thomas got the image from Marshall, A Century of Locomotive Building by Robert Stephenson, published in 1923 and again, likely from "The Engineer". Marshall's image is therefore well out of period, the build to scrap period for Twin Sisters being 1828 to Dec. 1831.
The choice morsel offered by Marshall, in 1923, is that the image in his book was "traced from the original undated drawing". What??
I have investigated Marshall¹, and found other drawings, the most instructive being of Patentee, LMR33. The drawing is signed by Robert Stephenson, dated June 12, 1840. Patentee appeared on the railway in 1834. Thus, these drawings are not precisely contemporary. They may reflect remembrance by principals and therefore contain errors. Yet they are directly from the firm of Robert Stephenson and Co. Ltd and thus authoritative. Reviewed, apparently, by Stephenson himself.
The original drawing of Twin Sisters is labeled "Liverpool Engine C" on that drawing, but is clearly Twin Sisters. It is held in public view by the Science Museum.
https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/documents/aa110001922/liverpool-engine-c-drawing
Please zoom the Science Museum's image to see detail. Title in upper right hand corner.
I have examined the drawing online, at high zoom magnification. It is drawn at a 1:8 scale, as noted on the drawing.
One concern of note is that of the drawing traced in Marshall, the scale added appears inaccurate. Remember, these are "traced from the undated original". The scale is not drawn on the original, it is merely stated as 1½ inches per foot. For example, when scaling² the original drawing, I obtain a wheel diameter of 4' 1⅛" +/- ⅜". When scaling the drawing from Marshall, using that added scale, I obtain 3' 9" wheel diameter. That is a significant delta of ~4". Marshall's scale is not to be trusted³.
Yet, there are some interesting details revealed in the Stephenson mechanical drawing.
In the end elevation, the drawing specifies that the back to back is 4 feet, 5½ inches. Further, that the back of flange to face of rail is 1⅜ inches. 5½+1⅜+1⅜ = 8¼, consistent with the known gauge 4'8¼". Not something to reproduce in the model, but something that lends to understanding this early railway.
The valve gear is timed to the axle under the pistons, leading to the steam chest. The valve gear is a detail not visible in Shaw but the steam chest is.
Not only is there a horizontally mounted steam reservoir, there are two other tanks mounted vertically nestled on either side, in between the large boilers. Perhaps condensation traps or additional resevoirs. This was made clear by the Stephenson drawing and once clear, became evident in the Shaw depiction. I hilariously missed these tanks in the first revision.
Not visible anywhere are the openings in the chimney for loading fuel, sadly we still just have the description. Pity that, such an odd feature.
The Stephenson drawing does not show any body work at all. It is merely a mechanical configuration drawing. I trust that Shaw draws what he sees, and therefore, the body must be.
With the OO squish problem, details such as boiler diameter cannot be directly translated. However, the ratio between boiler diameter to chimney diameter & etc can be measured and installed, leading to a reasonable appearance in OO.
Examples:
Chimney : Boiler ratio = .239
Horizontal Steam Reservoir : Boiler ratio = .148
Etc.My next task is clear. The CAD will be corrected to more closely match the Stephenson drawing, whilst including design cues from Shaw.
Bee
¹ The book covers locomotives right to 1923, for example:
Other modelers may wish to consult this book for details. Who would not wish to model this beauty? 😉
²Scaling drawings is typically bad engineering practice. It is fine for making models. The wheel scales somewhere between 4' ¾" wheel diameter to 4' 1½" wheel diameter. The imprecision is due to the Museum's resolution of ~¹/₁₆" per pixel and my ability to precisely pick out which pixel represents the line.
³Note that this 4 foot wheel diameter makes the adults in Shaw terribly short, which leads us back to scaling issues in Shaw as well.
-
Hilariously, not "insulated wheel joiners"
Insulated RAIL joiners.
Asleep at the switch🧐
-
1
-
-
Same LT&SR_NSE, Excitedly waiting!
Bee
-
1
-
-
May I specifically ask:
What is gained by eliminating the insulated rail joiner?
What benefit does this provide?
Adding the irj insures that the two controllers never electrically meet and thus prevents short circuit. I recognize that a locomotive can and will bridge the electrical gap, so matching the polarity between the controllers is still recommended, I simply do not understand the benefit of the converse, ie> no irj.
Thanks in advance
Bee
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Rana Temporia said:
Real hump shunting yards use wheel retarders to slow wagons down, I don’t know if it’d be possible to replicate this in a small scale without derailing the wagons, and if you got it wrong they would either stop short or hit any wagons in front at speed.
Maybe magnetic retarders would work?
One highly desired feature for me is Wapping Tunnel of the LMR. Rope haul to the top of the tunnel, with free wheel rollercoaster run to the bottom of the tunnel.
I've thought about this problem quite a bit. No definite ideas, and certainly no emperical testing of those ideas, but here goes.
In analog, it is a simple matter to power sections of track and not power others, by the use of insulated wheel joiners. Insure that the slope will always urge the carriage/waggon down the slope under reasonable circumstances. On that downhill slope, place some powered sections. In the carriage/waggon, use the power to move a small solenoid. The actuator of the solenoid contacts the axle on a small area. So as gravity urges the carriage waggon down the slope, the solenoid provides an intermittent braking force.
For the LMR the carriages and waggons essentially stopped near the same place, every time. The final section of track would be powered, which provides continuous force to the axle, making it stop.
I recognize that Hump Yards would require a more variable stopping point. This could be achieved with a time delay circuit, which pulses the solenoid circuit at operator command. A bit trickier? Yes, but still achievable. Indeed, at Hump Yards, the rail cars did bump into each other, it was not done in perfect grace.
Bee
-
1
-
-
I think 3 rail O scale tubular track measured to the outside rail, NTP, not to the centerline.
Not that Stoby will encounter very much of that.
Bee
-
BA taps and dies are available to sizes likely smaller than required for your old locos Rana.
The Romford / Markits parts use BA threads, so I have been investigating their purchase.
Bee
-
@Loewietje I thought yesterday's announcement near perfect.
Why?
The announcement was the polar opposite of announcements from recent years past. Instead of a broad promise covering a wide variety of stock, we received laser focus on stock that we can definitely purchase soon.
Under promise, Over deliver.
While nothing in the announcement suited my fancy, I recognize the change in presentation. What Martyn says is coming: absolutely is coming in the near future.
In this way, I know. When Martyn says something about something I do fancy (cough cough Locomotion cough), I can trust what he says. It is not an empty promise.
Bee
-
2
-
-
-
Whatever issues that Hornby was made aware of will absolutely be fixed, within commercial practicality.
That is, Hornby has their heart in the right place. They try very hard to do the right thing, JJ. So if they can fix a problem and it doesn't cost a fortune, they will fix it.
Secondly, it is very hard to identify the failure rate. Yes, there were some very, very vocal people doing their usual "Hornby bad" routine. But we really have no idea the total shipped and just exactly how many of those had issues. We can expect there will most always be some issues. That is what Customer Service is there for, to fix issues. But how many? That is a trade secret.
In other words, do not believe the exaggerated complaints of a few very loud people. Especially when they have an agenda.
Bee
-
The LMR locomotive Twin Sisters was a very early Robert Stephenson production. Construction began in 1828, a mere 3 years after Active/Locomotion for the S&DR. By 1829, Twin Sisters was hard at work, constructing the right of way. Today, Twin Sisters would be termed a 'maintenance of way' engine.
Twin Sisters was also pressed into early freight service, we have notice of such on 12 Feb 1831, when Twin Sisters was involved in a railway accident, running over one William Fewburn, rending him assunder. Twin Sisters was termed "one of the oldest engines on the railway", which is not completely true. Twin Sisters was the oldest, bar none.
On 12 Sept 1829, we have a newspaper report indicating Twin Sisters was hauling 50 to 60 tons of marl at 5 or 6 mph, with an empty speed of 10 mph, during construction of the LMR. Marl is simply dirt and rock, in other words excavated material. We have investigated the common utility waggons that Twin Sisters likely hauled. Hornby calls them "coal waggons", R60164. Each capable of 4½ tons of marl, Twin Sisters was hauling a 11 to 14 waggon consist.
The same report indicates "There are two chimneys, through the sides of which openings are left to throw in the fuel". This is truly an odd feature of the locomotive!
Issac Shaw presents us with the only drawing of Twin Sisters, to my knowledge.
There are some scaling issues here, as the individual with the wheelbarrow is drawn well over two feet tall, as he is in-between the rails, gauge 4'8½". If we accept the two adults further along the tracks as correct, the wheels are roughly 5 feet in diameter.Another locomotive by Robert Stephenson, Lancashire Witch, was constructed at nearly the same time. We have this marvelous mechanical drawing of Lancashire Witch, appearing in Coste, Memoire Sur Les Chemins a Ornieres, 1830.
This has exquisite detail, such as the steam chest, eccentrics and valve gear. When comparing the piston arrangement betwixt Coste and Shaw, great similarity will be found
Note the crosshead guide bar goose neck on each, drawn in the same convoluted way. Such a distinct feature, lending support to the commonality argument. Note that Lancashire Witch is shown on fishbelly rail.Modeling
I will use Romford / Markits wheels and axles.
Quartering is built into the axles, with the square boss on the axle fitting into the precisely sized square hole on the back of the wheels. The round retaining nut sits in a circular bore on the front. Shown are 20 mm wheels, or scale 5 feet, just as implied by Shaw.Consistent with my practice, the wheels and axles were measured and place into CAD. I insist on getting the details right in CAD, as this makes further refinement a reduction to practice. Note the wheels are automatically quartered.
Crankpins, crankpin bushings and axle bushings are added.
The axle bushings, shown in the initial photograph, give a metal on metal bearing surface, yielding low friction and long life.With one axle installed, multiply by three! Shaw shows the wheels very close to each other. I will retain that design feature, 0.5 mm apart at the flange tip.
Notice that the crankpin on the right has two crankpin bushes. One for the coupling rod, to couple the wheels together. One for the connecting rod, to connect the wheel to the piston. Stacked.The classic Romford line offers a 60:1 worm gear arrangement. In consideration of the top speed, a high gear ratio is called for. The worm has a 1.5 mm bore, which matches the selected motor. The upper shaft will go right up a chimney.
The wheels are turned off, for visibility. This center axle will not move side to side in compliance for second radius curves. This will permit the gears to remain stable, on location of mesh. I do not have the gears on hand (yet) and there is dilemma not resolved by the specification. If drawn to the spec, the gears interfere with each other, yet the gear to gear center distance is specified to two decimal places, making this a conundrum. The gears are metal and have a long history. The conundrum will be resolved later.The coupling rods, connecting rods and crossheads are added.
These too are commercial parts. There are 'universal coupling rods' available from Alan Gibson and others. The double guidebar crossheads are a Markits item.At last, we come to the first part I must make. The crosshead guidebars.
Shown in fushia, the length of these is quite critical. Too short, and they do not support the crosshead over the full range of travel. Too long, and the connecting rod interferes with the guidebars. I was forced to compromise by providing a small radius to the end of the guidebars. There is clearance now, but only just, a function of accurately measured parts and a reduction to practice.How in the world did Stephenson resolve this same interference? Consult the Lancashire Witch. The crosshead is shown
The piston rod and the connecting rod are NOT in the same plane as the crosshead. In both plan and elevation views, this is quite clearly shown!With the mechanicals sketched in, it is possible to rough in the 3d printed plastic shell, and place the locomotive on a second radius curve. Yes, there is room for axle compliance.
Note the pistons, which scale to 18" in diameter on Lancashire Witch. Enormous for such a tiny locomotive. The pistons are supported on triangular plates, similar to an array of Stephenson locomotives, such as Rocket.The splashers over the wheels are included as implied by Shaw, with the crosshead going directly through the side mounted footplates. A feature also found on locomotion.
In general, the concept seems workable. The majority of the mechanicals are commercially available Romford / Markits parts. The only manufactured mechanical being the crosshead guidebars. Brass bar stock will be readily purchased to fit the crosshead groove. The details can be added to the 3D model to suit, a primary example being the cross mounted steam reservoir between the chimneys.
Before further progress can be made, the commercial parts must be sourced, measured and installed into CAD, not the least of which is the gear conundrum.
Bee
-
2
-
-
https://bosshorn.com/blogs/blog/uk-train-horn-rules
Locomotives also have a horn. I do not know if there is an exception for heritage lines(?) The 4 wheeler should have heard that horn. In the US, 110 dB at 100 feet, or as I call it, ridiculously loud.
It is very common in these incidents that the driver of the 4 wheeler is attempting to race the locomotive to the level crossing. "I didn't notice the locomotive" is a far better excuse than "I am an person who risked the lives of all occupants of the car to save a few seconds"
Bee
-
Martyn provides a brief update regarding Locomotion No.1 at time stamp 30:00 of the video linked above.
In brief, Martyn states 'on track for this year' and 'towards the backend of the year'.
Bee
Always so many details to discover.
.jpg.8898d447e3f5e225c7b2e7637ece18e2.jpg)
Flying Scotsman steam.
in General Discussion
Posted
@RB51
I note you are confused by Colin's statement. Permit me a moment to clear this up.
Firstly, this isn't Hornby specific, rather it is a common thing. It has everything to do with how a shipment is treated at the Shipping Department.
When Shippimg Department packages an item, they prepare to ship. They register with the carrier and obtain a shipping number. This is entered into the database. The item placed on the loading dock for carrier pickup. Many computer systems treat this as "Shipped". Yet if you go to the carrier's webpage and enter the shipping number, it is marked something to the effect of "waiting for package". That is, the carrier recognizes the number but does not have your package yet.
When the carrier takes possession of the package, the status at the carrier will change to reflect. However, this does not necessarily result in any change at the origination, as the item is marked as "Shipped"
This gray zone was the subject of a bitter fight over at eBay. Vendors were gaming the system. We finally convinced eBay to install this step in their accounting of shipments and the community is the better for it.
Hopefully, this clears up any confusion.
Bee