What About The Bee

Disappointing @sir johnbut Hornby will sort this. Please do keep us posted. Bee

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. @LTSR_NSE 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

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

Pack the 2.6 mm pipe anchor with an extra layer of wire insulation. The color blend perfectly, making it camouflaged. The extra bit will appear as a pipe join. And the anchor will actually function as an anchor, a complete bonus! 😁 Bee

I've currently got 48 purchased components in Twin Sisters. For example, the motor is 1 part, whereas the gear driven by the worm has 2, there is a grub screw to attach the gear to the axle. I don't know quite how to count the 3D printed portion, except to say that there are currently 517 sketches. Each sketch is used to create features in the 48 purchased components and the 3D structure. Likely to be many more sketches along the way, as other parts are installed in CAD. You need to be organized!! Bee

I got the 6 chuffs per revolution as well NTP. I was confused until you mentioned 3 cylinders. Thank you! I mark the orientation of the crank pin to the coupling rod, and simply count the number of chuffs until it returns to that location. In this case, 6. Looks about right to me Bee

I decided to install the chimney cable stays. There are quite a number of stays in Shaw's drawing of Twin Sisters. Kind of bewildering. Being a careful lad, I traced each one, identifying where the stay came from and where it attached to. And what to my wondering eyes did appear? The door in the chimney, perfectly clear! 😉 Firstly a review of the statements, this published 12 Sept 1829, 6 weeks after LMR takes possession of the locomotive. "This engine has two cylindrical boilers, placed vertically on 6 wheels, with a fire-place¹ in each, having a conical tube passing up through the centre of the boiler. There are two chimneys, through the sides of which openings are left to throw in the fuel." From this, we can know that the openings in the chimney are very likely below head height. For poking the fire, the engineman needs to see in, to see what he is poking. To permit fuel to be "thrown in", the opening would certainly be low enough such that an engineman could reach it. So the opening was likely head height or lower. We also have this statement from George Stephenson to the Chief Draftsman at the Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd works in Newcastle, in a letter dated 13 Aug 1829. "....I have put to the coke engine² a longer exarsting pipe, reaching to nearly the top of the chimney, but find it does not nearly do so well as putting it in to the chimney lower down..." If George had his way, we would call it the exarsting pipe and not the blast pipe. A blast pipe causes a venturi effect to draw the fire. The exarsting pipe cannot draw the fire with a large opening in the chimney, the air would be drawn from the opening, not the firebox. From this we know there must be a door, so as to close that opening in the side of the chimney. If the opening was above the exarsting pipe, it would not require a door. But George states that he experimented with the location of the pipe, placing it at the top of the chimney. This is well above where an engineman could reach. There must be a door. When I think of a door, I usually envision hinges on the side and the door swinging around a vertical axis, like the front door to your home. That is what I expected on Twin Sisters. That turns out to be a terrible assumption. As I mentioned, I was drawing the cable stays. That's odd, I said to myself, that particular cable stay has a sharp bend in it. A line with a sharp bend in it. That isn't a cable stay, full stop. Shaw has other prints which we have examined. In examining this drawing by Shaw, the rearward facing guard, who is nearest us, has a brake handle directly to his right hand side. Take a moment to look at the image and find the brake handle. It is a crank handle. Drawn as a line with a sharp bend in it. It blends into the rock lines, but once you see it, trace the line down the front of the carriage, leading to the brake assembly. Definitely the brake handle, conveniently placed for the guard in charge of the brake. Ah HA! There is a crank handle in the superstructure, mounted to the chimney on Twin Sisters. So what does that crank handle do? Here is my solution to the door. The central series of short repeated horizontal lines are a rack. The crank handle turns a pinion, which engages the rack. The long vertical lines are the guides for the door as it is raised and lowered by the rack and pinion. Naturally, the guides must be longer than the door is tall. I've sketched this up in CAD, to make crisp three dimensional objects from the lines drawn by Shaw, shown side by side with Shaw. On the other chimney, I've turned the crank handle, raising the door to expose the opening. This particular chimney does not have the motor shaft running straight up inside. I am sorely tempted to leave the door up when 3D printed, perhaps with added firebox glow! I am convinced. But have I convinced you? Let me know. Bee ¹firebox. ² Twin Sisters. Recall the Stephenson dwg says "Liverpool Coke Engine". In LMR Board minutes, the engine is referred to as "The Sisters". Referenced in the press as "Twin Sisters".

Hi Brew Man Try: Pipe strap Pipe Anchor Bee

@Dukedog. Hi Duke The tricky bit will be the weights and measures standards, for the time. Let's just say that things weren't exactly defined or observed. Exactly how long was a yard? How much, precisely, does a pound weigh? Those questions are far deeper than they appear on the face of it. Traceable standards are accepted today, but it has taken quite a bit of effort to get here. The metric units you quote were a system used in France but not on the LMR, where it was still the imperial system. The barrels on the tenders appeare quite large in comparison to the individuals working the locomotive, Three Link is most likely correct in referring to them as "tuns". To sum it up, however, we are looking at an ancient unit of measure called the "tun". Like a chaldron (weight of coal), these had loose meanings which only acquire firm definition in a more modern era. Bee

Always a judgment call Colin. For this particular field¹, downtime in the field was extraordinarily expensive. It was a bottleneck step in the process. Downtime was over $50k/hour; but could range higher depending upon process flow. Clients tend to get hopping mad over that. The S/N curve indicated sporadic repair. So we would end up with ridiculous back charges WHEN the assembly failed. You needed arms like an orangutan, the dexterity of a virtuoso and to top it off, on your back, under the machine, for a screw and tapped hole you could not see. Fix it. Bee ¹ Not locomotive manufacturing. It is competition sensitive, so I cannot say. Sorry.

What is a LARGE production run for us: 3500? Many are advertised as limited to 500. Pilot programs may be a bit of a stretch. Bee

That's right @ColinB Its a function of the quantity in the production run. A large order for that firm was 20 pieces. Usually it was just a handful of very expensive industrial machines Bee

Exactly 96RAF. The engineer who designs something must absolutely know how to put it together. Its a requirement of the position, be it models, automobiles or industrial machinery. We were producing a first of a kind bit of kit. ~3.5M USD per. The technician was spending a dog's age putting in a screw. When I asked him about it, he handed me the screw. "You do it". ½ hour later, I recognized it was near impossible. I dragged the mechanical engineer out to the floor by his nose and handed him the screw. I ordered him to install it, being forbidden to leave until it was done. Eventually, he got it in place but stated that a redesign was clearly needed. Excellent observation (sarcasm). Having access to the mechanical engineering team and designers would have made Jenny's task much, much easier. All the thinking part, of how to do it, goes away. Someone has already considered how to do it. Its just the doing part that is left, which is difficult enough as it is. Bee

A gallon of water weights ~8.34 lbs 250 gallons × 8.34 pounds/gallon = 2084 pounds 1 tun weighs ~1 ton Which, per the internet, is where the word "ton" is derived from: "tun" Thanks Three Link! Learned something new today. Bee

The R40438 Booth Carriage is now listed as "out of stock" ! It looks like it sold out on pre-order, as we just had notice of it coming into stock days ago. For those who got one or more, like @LTSR_NSE, you did not miss out! For those who sat on the fence? Better scoop one up from your favorite model shop, and soon. Bee

Hi @threelink Of course I will update with the completed article, but we have have long way to go yet. The CAD stuff here is much more complicated than simple waggons or carriages. Its motorized, with working coupling and connecting rods. It needs electrical power distribution and pickups. I have some ideas, but nothing has been installed in CAD, a major task. I think of this CAD model as a proposal drawing, because many of the purchased Romford and Markits parts are not on hand. So I have "guessed some of the dimensions" which will need correcting when they are on hand The good news: I think this model quite feasible. It can be made. I do not need to invent technical solutions, like my prior locomotive design. Bee

Hi 81F I did check to see if Rocket had the cylinders illustrated in this thread. Rocket was Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd 's locomotive #19, with Twin Sisters at #13. So relatively close in sequence. Rocket did not use these cylinders. It is very likely that there was commonality among Arrow LMR2, Wildfire LMR3, Dart LMR4, Comet LMR5, Phoenix LMR6 and North Star LMR8. These were ordered by the board as a group, after the success of Rocket at the Rainhill Trials Note: these are different artists, but the images do show commonality betwixt engines. The first is Phoenix, the second is North Star. Perhaps the tender is a clue about the time the image of Twin Sisters was created. During the construction of the LMR's right of way, Twin Sisters was kept very busy. She was a star. Her boiler, it is noted, was filled / refreshed with already boiling water so there was no waiting to raise steam. Therefore, not much need for a tender. After Opening Day, as more powerful and quicker locomotives came on line, Twin Sisters was relegated to luggage (freight) service, and due to her slow speed, only at night. In the image, Twin Sisters is on a siding. Its daytime. And she has a tender. I think, therefore, that the image was created after Opening Day, Sept 1830 and before she was scrapped in Dec 1831 Yet barrel tenders were a Stephenson practice. In the early 1820s, George produced locomotives for the Hetton Colliery. Tredgold, 1825, presents us with an image of one of them Tredgold specifically uses the word "tender" for the carriage behind the locomotive which carries "water for supplying the boiler, and coals...for the fire". Hedley's Puffing Billy of 1813 also had a barrel tender. Seen here in the 8 coupled drive wheel version. I give a quick pictorial reference of tender development here. There are three phases. https://community.hornbyhobbies.com/forums/topic/31950-bee-what-do-you-think-about-rockets-tender-being-used-for-tigers-wagons/?do=findComment&comment=340276 Bee