What About The Bee

Hi @mightyllama Please do tell us if you find success with altering CV19. Hornby is currently chasing this https://community.hornbyhobbies.com/forums/topic/35896-cv19-reverting-to-a-value-other-than-default/?do=findComment&comment=385596 Thank you! Bee

Correction to above. The Series 3 track, large radius curve is specified as 17⅛" (43.5 cm). My apologies for mangling the data point. The question of when Hornby switched to a metric specification only remains. Should be post Super 4 track, so the 70's or 80's. Bee

Hi @Gordonvale You pose a valid and quite interesting point. It speaks to standards and specification. For the purposes of the lateral compliance computation, there is little appreciable difference. For OO Experiment, using 438 mm, Y' is 1.306997 mm [rounded up to 1.307 mm in the equations above]. Using 438.15 mm as the track radius, Y' is 1.306507 mm. This makes sense, of course, a slightly larger radius requires slightly less lateral compliance. The delta is 400 nanometers or less than 20 millionths of an inch. My cutoff for model railway computations is typically 1 micron, making this below notice. Yet, in the interests of mathematical rigor, the point must be pursued. I think this conversation must begin with what Hornby themselves state https://support.hornby.com/hc/en-gb/articles/10406079411612-00-Gauge-Track-Geometry Hornby specifies a 2nd radius curve as 438 mm. There is no imperial conversion, no indication of inches, anywhere. Just metric. Peco also sells 2nd radius curves. Here's one https://peco-uk.com/products/double-curve-2nd-radius-2?variant=7435751620642 Peco specifies a 2nd radius curve as 438 mm. There is no imperial conversion, no indication of inches, anywhere. Just metric. Here is the support I could find for a 17¼" specification, but these specs are all very old and superceded https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Hornby_Dublo_two-rail_system States 17¼" for Hornby Dublo 2 Rail. https://www.classiccollectmodels.co.uk/category/model-railway-history/ Series 3 track, 17¼". Super 4 track, 17¼" (43.8 cm). Both metric and imperial units are displayed. Apparently the root cause, the sloppy unit conversion starts at the inception of Super 4. I would like to know when Hornby only states metric. Those with old catalogs can best tell us this. Bee

Hi @SteveM6 I agree that which ever way gets Deem to a working controller is good. Cleaning the contact, swapping keyboards, swapping displays? It matters not, he just needs a controller. As the ebay offering is an auction, we will just have to wait and see. Fingers crossed Deem wins. As to Hornby? We must consider that Hornby is a business, not a benevolent public institution. If it is no longer commercially viable to perform a service, then they should not perform it. I would prefer, personally, that Hornby remain in business, rather than to go bankrupt attempting to salvage old kit. A 2007 unit is 17 years old. How long do we expect it to last? Bee

Hi @Rallymatt Thank you for your kind compliment. I used the illustrations to confirm the equations I wrote for myself. All mistakes in the equations are my own. I thought to share the equations and diagrams so that other modelers could chime in with additions and questions. It is a fantastic topic! For the enthusiasts attempting to make their own, the equations are design considerations. Hornby, or indeed any manufacturer, is unlikely to make the more obscure locomotives, carriages or waggons. If an enthusiast wants those, there is but one choice. Make them yourself. Why wait? Understanding the system comprised of wheels, points and curves is a pre-requisite to making them yourself without a tremendous trial and error effort. Turning to your discussion about the B2B. I agree that making the B2B smaller helps in curves. It increases Track Gap (Q in chapter 1) and mathematically relaxes requirements. There is a caveat to reducing the B2B, to wit: points. With the wheel near the stock rail constrained by the check rail, the B2B controls precisely where the other wheel will be, as it rolls through the wing and frog rails. I recognize that you understand this, but state the obvious for a somewhat more casual reader. Making the B2B smaller does help in turns, but we must stay within a fairly small range of values. Our community has an extremely broad span. I do not expect even the most experienced modelers to know everything. Further, experience, in and of itself, is a poor substitute for actual understanding of theoretical aspects. And so, if an enthusiast does not understand the reasons why a model can wobble, its forgivable. I also recognize that the vast bulk of the people visiting the Forum are looking for a basic answer to basic questions, and that simple technical help is all they require. Practical experience, especially if it is decades of that, will provide the quick answer to their queries. Its a valuable commodity and the reason why the experienced correspondent is so treasured. None need to understand why that thing is so, it just must be. Do this, don't do that. The equations presented in this thread are far beyond what is needed to "make a layout work". However, for those who wish to know why that thing is so, the insight is extraordinary. Bee

@Deem Perhaps this auction is of interest https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/296596276863 The person claims it works, except for the "9" key. Maybe strip the display and keep the rest for parts? Bee

Hi JJ That's an interesting panel. Did UK outline locomotives get fitted with cow catchers? Bee

It stands to reason that of all the ultrasonic water droplets expelled upwards from the chimney, a handful may drop back down onto the boiler. The LMR had this issue as well. What went up through the chimney came down on the passengers. Canopies were installed to keep the cinders off of passengers. Bee

But @threelink, why would you want a book? A book is a static store of information, there is no spirited conversation. Books are great. But conversation is better. Here, we can trade ideas. There, its the world according to some nutter named Bee and no, thank you, the world does not need that diktat. Bee

If you are done, @Train Mad1707822774, remember to run the water reservoir dry. Its not a good idea to store it with water in the tank Bee

OO Twin Sisters has a geared axle. In my initial sketches, I supposed that the bull gear (disk, with gears on edge) had straight teeth. This would permit the geared axle to move side to side, relative to the chassis. I received the Romford 60:1 gear from Scale Link. The bull gear has enveloped teeth, that is, the teeth wrap around the worm gear. The geared axle is the middle of the three axles. My immediate concern was lateral compliance. How would this go around a OO R2 (438 mm) curve. The axle cannot shift relative to the chassis. I solve that here Fixed axle Computation in Round the Bend This alleviated my concern. The nominal gap between the F2F and the Track (Q=.148 mm) is far larger than the lateral compliance (Y = 0.012 mm). I can distribute this as I wish, it will be fine. On to my next poorly reverse engineered object, the crankpins. Bee

LT&SR_NSE pointed out that diagrams are helpful. This diagram illustrates chapter two, where we find the flange extension to the wheelbase. It should be evident that the distance X, from the axle centerline, the flange and rail meet geometrically. From this pure side elevation, you can see the exact point. For OO Twin Sisters, the center axle is captive by the enveloped gears. Therefore, it cannot shift side to side. How much lateral compliance does this axle need? Find X, the flange extension, 3.316 mm, using the process described in this post. The wheelbase, Wa is 0, as this is a single axle. Solve for Y, the chord formed by twice the flange extension and a 2nd radius curve. Answer? 0.012 mm. The track gap Q, chapter 1, is 0.148 mm. Thus, whatever lateral compliance we need for this axle will be easily accommodated by Q. There is no issue! Bee

That is very complimentary @Peter Stiles. While I do appreciate the sentiment, it may be unwarranted. I'm always in awe of those around me and strive to do better. Thank you. I share your enthusiasm for learning. Nothing like a new discovery, a novel approach, to invigorate the mind. I came to the Forum so as to learn from others who are more knowledgeable than I about model railways. There are plenty. I make plenty of mistakes, but writing a book will not be one. 😁 Bee

My only familiarity with Countdown are the episodes with Jimmy Carr. Which leads to my preference of Rachel Riley 😉 ÷÷÷÷ The problem so lends itself to trigonometry, as most of the solution is triangles within a circle. The flange extension (X) and the lateral wheel compliance (Y) are essentially trigonometric identities with a radius of wheel drum and track radius respectively. I moved OO Experiment from a straight to an R2 curve in my mind's eye, literally hundreds of times, checking and re-checking. And then formulated a set of equations and trialed them against the CAD. Repeatedly. The set of equations presented meet requirements. Bee

With the parts on hand, the final bits of OO Experiment can be resolved. The parts that were reverse engineered (guessed at) were measured and updated. The model was updated to permit OO Experiment around a 2nd radius curve (438 mm). You may read all about that here: Round The Bend Another update is couplings. It is clear that Locomotion is to run with the Accurascale Chaldrons. Carl stated as so, during a video update. The Accurascale Chaldrons come with extra magnetic chain couplings to attach to other rolling stock. They use a NEMA 362 pocket. I've installed that pocket, to spec, on OO Experiment. It is rendered as a separate color, as separate part in CAD, but in the 3D print, it will be fused with the chassis When Locomotion No.1, Accurascale Chaldrons and OO Experiment are coupled, it will be the same coupling throughout. I decided to install side skirts under the seats, outboard of the seat cradles The reason is apparent. John Backhouse was a first hand observer on Opening Day of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. When the CAD is viewed in side elevation with the chassis detail turned off, as Backhouse depicts the consist, something very magical happens Bee 1) Hopefully, this goes to the correct thread. Posted via search function 2) Would someone mind examining the metadata for Locomotion? I'd like to have OO Experiment on hand when Locomotion arrives. Thanks!

Deleted

I did see it here, but cannot remember who posted. At least, that is what my faulty memory tells me.... Tiny magnets. One in the shoe, the other in the object the figure is to stand on. Perfectly invisible in the base, need not even be exposed to the surface. Not visible in the figure, because it is inside the shoe. The figure can be moved about to other hidden magnets, leading to a more dynamic display, easier to clean, etc Bee

I should like to clarify what I thought would happen. I thought that I could enter my reply to Workbench from any page, and that it would add my reply to the bottom of the pages (it did) and then, upon page refresh, show me my post (it did not). It showed me the page I was on, page 1, with my reply populated in the reply box, still live. I did not expect that, at all. Normally, when on the last page of a thread, when you press the enter and submit, it reloads the page you are on, and DEPOPULATES the reply box. You can see your completed post. That was the expected behavior. This should be an easy error to recreate. Simply go to any thread with multiple pages. Navigate to page 1. Enter a reply. Observe that the reloaded page 1 still has a populated reply box. [Buzzer sound!] Bee