What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,926 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
This should get you started. It may not be an all time complete list of Pecketts ever made.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I am willing to give Martyn the benefit of doubt @Going Spare
It is not just a core customer service. Perhaps Martyn is unaware of the incredible profit center that is the Spares Dept. Perhaps he does not realize that the cost of running a Spares Dept is easily supported by the sales of spares AND those sales provide a direct profit contribution to the overall bottom line.
It is easy to see the Spares Dept as a cost without financial benefit. Technical Writers and Illustrators have an associated salary. Filling a stockroom with kit that sits and sits merely ties up capital. Warehouse Workers and a Shipping Dept also take an outlay of funds. Where is the ROI?
Setting all of this back up, with the return on investment off in the future may not make this a top priority for Martyn.
But frankly, where else am I to purchase the part that Hornby designed? The design is proprietary. If I need the part, I will pay the price. A price Hornby can set so as to make the Spares Dept a profit center.
Martyn is taking on a monumental challenge. To reform an institution from the inside out AND satisfy impatient investors. I do not envy him in this role. I say we give him a chance to make it right. It may not happen tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow.
But happen it must. Where in the heck are my exploded parts diagrams? How can I buy a spare without knowledge of what spare I am looking for?
Bee
-
9 minutes ago, Bulleidboy said:
...but when you start looking at greater detail the cost rises - steeply ...
Martyn raised that exact point, within Dawn's interview: the relationship of detail with cost.
The first step in solving a problem is understanding what the problem is. It does appear that Martyn gets it.
Bee
-
I took away a few points
Average development time. Martyn stated 18 months from decision to product, but that Locomotion No.1 took longer. Not a surprise, it takes time to flesh out an idea. Interesting confirmation.
TT:120 is successful from a commercial standpoint. That is healthy for the institution. Even if I never go TT:120, a good revenue stream is beneficial as a whole for the organization, which benefits me indirectly.
Spares and serviceability. Sorry Martyn. Where are my service sheets for locomotives that have come out in the past few years? How am I to service a locomotive when I cannot even see how its put together. I do wish Hornby would catch up.
Hornby is a RTR company. There will not be kits to make your own stock, manufactured by Hornby. 3D printing opens the door to make nearly anything you want. A kit is the intermediate between RTR and 3D scratch building. Better to focus on strengths, which is RTR.
Lastly, the way Hornby considers feedback. Not over-reacting to an extremely vocal minority, who sometimes have an ax to grind. But carefully considering trends and valid concerns. That is a measured response.
Adroit interview Dawn. Well done
Bee
-
1
-
-
Hi RDS
Lionel made one for O scale.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296278731637
While likely not raising the bridge high enough, nor wide enough for a human, the concept is fairly straightforward.
Something to think about
Bee
-
Hi @Neil1944
The real railways sometimes have a similar requirememt, to have a removable section of track. They use Railway Lift Bridges (images).
Since in real life, there is not a man alive that can manually lift the section, it is done mechanically.
If done properly, you would press a button, and the lift section would go up. You would then enter or exit the railway. Press another button, the lift section goes down into perfect alignment. No fiddling around with toggles, pins, etc. No strength requirements. Just two buttons, up/down.
If the railways can do it, so can you.
Bee
-
Hi 81F
I get the sense that you do not have the chassis, wheels, motor, gears a & etc in your CAD tool. That is, you have the shell you are printing, but not the kit it fits over.
If I have that correct, may I recommend that you take the time to sketch those components in? It will take some time with a calipers, measuring the existing parts and drawing them in CAD. The reward will be magnificent. Fitting your shell to that chassis, in CAD, will be much easier and certainly reduce the print iterations.
Decades ago, a very senior engineer told me: "Slow down to speed up". What he meant was to take the time to fill in all the blanks before making the commitment to a design. It takes more time in the beginning ("slow down") but results in a quicker final result ("to speed up").
Of course, this is completely unsolicited old man advice, and who doesn't love that? 😉
Bee
-
Hello @Neil1944
A completely removable plate is certainly do-able.
In order for it to function properly, you need to consider a few basics. Geometry, registration and power distribution.
The geometry consideration is one of being able to remove the plate and replace it all whilst maintaining the level before the plate, the plate and after the plate. That is, you have a dead flat plate that straddles two abutments, each of which are level with one another. When the plate is placed onto to abutments, all three pieces are at the same level. This ensures best running of your trains.
Plate flatness is readily achieved by making the plate a shallow box. The large flat on top, and the four sides the shallow part out of some lumber. Take the time to ensure the sides are all the same height. You want a rectangular box, not a twisted pretzel.
Getting the two abutments co-planar is a matter of spanning the gap with a spirit level and shimming here and there until the level reads parallel to the horizon, no matter where you place it on the abutments. Take your time, get this step perfect.
I suspect you will need at least a 6 foot spirit level, or perhaps even 8 foot long, so as to span a gap for your wheelchair. You want the level to sit on the surfaces of the abutments, not just the edge. Assume the gap is 3½ feet (I cannot know your requirement, but only guess) then you need at least a foot on either side of that gap. Better with 2 feet on each side.
With the abutments coplanar, span the gap again with the spirit level. This time, however, we are to bring the top surface of the plate even with the top surface of the abutments. We are using the level merely as a straightedge. You will need some method of temporarily holding the plate to the spirit level, for example clamps. Two straight edges are better than one for holding the plate in position.
You will then fix two additional boards UNDER THE PLATE to the abutments, such that the plate is fully supported from either abutment. The clamps and spirit levels can be removed. The plate is supported by the two boards you just added.
At this point, the geometry is complete. You can lift the plate out and replace it. The horizontal nature of the three surfaces is maintained. The coplanarity is maintained.
It is important to note that the gaps between the plate and the abutments should be as tight as you can make them and still remove and replace the plate. The tracks that sit on top of the plate must meet the tracks on each abutment, and your locomotive must cross the gap. Accuracy here will reap reward.
The next part is registration. How to keep the tracks on the plate in alignment with the tracks on the abutments, side to side. One solution (there are many others) is to use tapered pins on the plate that slide into a tapered holes on the abutments. One on each side of the plate. When both slide home, the plate is now fixed from side to side and due to the previous geometry, the plate is coplanar with the abutments.
Voila, a plate that you can take completely out and replace in the same exact position.
Next, Lay your track. Most run their tracks across the gaps, fixing the track by the gap firmly. Then cut the track at the gap.
Finally you must bring power to the track. There should be a connector, like a molex connector (or similar) which will bring power from the rest of the layout to your tracks on the plate.
~~~~~~~
You should take your time and enjoy the process. This is all part of the benchmark you must design and consider. Its really just a bit of specialized bench work. I urge you to really think about what we are trying to achieve and not just blindly follow this advice. If something is unclear (goals, methods, tools, etc) just ask. This is non-trivial.
Oh, and Welcome Aboard!!
Bee
PS: this is for a REMOVABLE flap. If you would like a hinged flap, there are different considerations. Think about which way you would like to go.
-
1
-
-
@Ryan-1211848you are quite welcome Ryan!
-
Ryan, when dealing with measurements, it is important to specify the UNIT.
There is a huge difference between 24 millimeters, 24 centimeters and 24 inches.
I suspect you mean 24 inches. If that is the case, then yes, Hornby locomotives are typically specified to be minimum turn radius R2. Which means 438 millimeters. 438 millimeters, converted to inches, is 17¼ inches.
Is 17¼ inches, the minimum turn radius, less than 24 inches? Yes, it is.
So no issues, your UK locomotives will most certainly handle 24 inches, because the minimum required is 17¼ inches.
Hopefully that clears this up.
Bee
-
Hello Ryan
I am not sure what you mean by "24 radius". If you mean 24 INCH radius, then yes, they can.
438 mm = 17¼" which is less than 24"
Bee
-
Hi Ryan
Welcome aboard! I too am in the US.
Most Hornby locomotives have a minimum curve specified by number. R1, R2, R3, etc. Alternatively stated as first radius, second radius, etc
These correspond to dimensions given in millimeters. R2, or second radius, is 438 mm / 43.8 cm. That's 17¼".
The smaller the number, the tighter the turn. Thus, R1 is smaller than R2.
They are set up this way so that multiple parallel tracks can go around a turn, such that adequate clearance is provided for rolling stock.
Bee
-
28 minutes ago, Rog RJ said:
Have you removed the capacitor from the motor, it isn't needed for DCC and can badly affect running.
Okay, I admit to being confused right now.
It is my understanding that RF noise is created from the electric arc of the brush to the commmutator. The discrete component RC network is added to a DC locomotive to suppress the arc, and thus the noise.
From the advice given above, which I respect, it appears that the RC network is onboard the decoder.
Is that correct?
If the discrete component RC network from DC is not removed, interaction between the now TWO noise suppression RC networks can be expected.
Bee
-
12 hours ago, Rana Temporia said:
I don’t know how they managed it [in DC days] and I got rid of a lot of my magazines recently.
Just a guess, but it could be done in the same manner as hump classification yards.
In hump classification yards, a small hill uses the force of gravity to propel freight cars into the appropriate siding. The velocity of the car can be regulated by pinching the wheels via external means, not by breaking the car. Cars have no practical means of applying its own brakes independently.
For example, a very gradual check rail could slowly pinch the leading wheels, eventually leading to a grab and stop. The check rail system could be combined with a point motor, to disengage it as desired.
Just a guess of course!
Bee
-
@LTSR_NSEExcellent observation. The LMR log waggon completely slipped my mind, and yes, per Whishaw (1842), it clearly had a pivoting member.
Both Backhouse and Dobbins show the top of the seat backs terminated at the height of the chaldron. The seats I illustrate in the prior post are merely for width and are much too low. Once raised, there will be significant room underneath the false floor. Does it conceal a pivot? I do not know the answer.
Let's follow the data, and see where it takes us.
Bee
-
Have you ever wondered how a model is developed?
Here is how I begin any CAD design, with the analysis of the existing imagery and descriptions.
We have two portrayals of Experiment and one written description, which informs us of the seating chart and carriage entryways.
Of the two images, we have the one by John Backhouse, drawn on the spot on 27 Sept 1825. The other is a more formal painting by Dobbins, who was a first hand observer. Unfortunately the painting itself was created decades later.
Of the two, I personally consider the Backhouse depiction far more important. Why? Backhouse had nothing to reference, no other railway comparisons. He drew what he observed, without consideration of what he "knew".
For example: Backhouse depicts Experiment with FOUR axles. That is a most unusual characteristic, observed again only briefly for the Duke of Wellington carriage on LMR Opening Day; but usually not observed. Nearly everything had only two axles¹. Four axles presents an issue. Backhouse cannot know the difficulty. He has nothing to base his depiction on, no prior knowledge of railways. Thus, he drew what he observed. Four axles.
What does Dobbins depict, decades later? Nothing. He conveniently hides the chassis behind a wall. Now that could have been an accidental depiction. It also could have been deliberate. It could also be an artist, knowing that four axle carriages have railway issues, doubts his own recollections and so avoids the dilemma by hiding it.
My CAD of Experiment must therefore have FOUR AXLES, as per Backhouse
How long should Experiment be?
I measured the top of each chaldron depicted by Backhouse. The average length was just over 21 pixels. I then measured the top of Experiment, as depicted, obtaining 51 pixels.
Therefore, the ratio is 51/21.2 = 2.406
I measure the top of the Accurascale chaldron at 33.7 mm. OO Experiment should be 81.071 mm long.
What about Experiment's wheels and axles?
Here, there are some dilemmas.
Backhouse shows a chaldron hopper length and wheel diameter. Accurascale also has these characteristics. Yet between the two, there are different ratios.
Further Backhouse shows both chaldron wheels and Experiment wheels. There is a clear size difference. The ratio, per Backhouse, is 1.57. That is, Experiment's wheels are 1.57 times bigger than his chaldron wheels.
If I am to keep the ratio of Accurascale chaldron wheels to Experiment wheels correct per Backhouse, then the wheels should be 18.56 mm in diameter. Obviously too big as that is a scale diameter of nearly 4 feet 8 inches.
Yet I should make Experiment's wheels bigger than the wheels on an Accurascale chaldron.
What else pops off the page?
These points are agreed upon by Backhouse and Dobbins.
1. There are 6 posts per side, creating 5 openings.
2. "EXPERIMENT" is written on the side (presumably both sides?) in bold capital letters.
3. No horn guides or blocks are shown. The wheels must be outside of any frame and the bearing surfaces inside the wheels.
First pass at CAD for OO Experiment.
Experiment's chassis shown with four axles and larger wheels, next to a chaldron for comparison. Yes, the track radius is a concern with this.
And herein is another dilemma
Does the carriage body nestle in between the wheels or does it overhang the wheels?
If between the wheels, as all the imagery suggests, that is very cramped internally. We must fit two of: seat depths, external walls and wheel clearances plus one central walkway. All of which must be inside 4'8½". Made all the worse by the OO Squish problem. This image shows a scale 12" depth seat on each side, with a grand total of a scale 6" walkway.
Or with overhanging, we have a more spacious and reasonable cross-section. The seats have ~16" depth (normal) with a much more reasonable walkway between them.
I think that's enough for now.
Bee
¹Stephenson's Patentee LMR33. The 1834 patent explicitly claims flange-less wheels as a method of overcoming multiple axles. Therefore, it cannot apply to Experiment, created in 1825.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, sir john said:
I'm sure most users don't really want to read arguments about who knows more about computer programming.
You are right John. I plead guilty. My apologies.
Sincerely
Bee
-
1
-
-
I thought perhaps you were in the Netherlands, but did not want to assume too much. Your name may just give the game away. Anyway, I didn't think the word improper. But hey, I am American. We don't speak English, per the British 🤣
I too cannot wait for Locomotion No.1
Bee
-
1
-
-
Hi Colin
I too know a bit about software. I began writing it in the 1960s and by 1975, was getting paid to do it.
My last paid software consultancy was in the mid 2010s, for the locomotive manufacturing facility. I was brought in for bug fix.
Their body of software was ~500,000 lines of code. Multiple concurrent processes.
Here is one for you. The software would occasionally lock up. Literally freeze for more than 24 hours, then resume as if nothing happened. They assigned this to me. They told me two things: (1) a major US railroad was so angry that they were finally going to stop paying for it and (2) the firm I was consulting for, knew of the problem for TWO YEARS and had no idea what was going on. Great.
5 weeks later, I removed two characters from the 500,000 lines of code. Problem fixed.
It was three issues combined. Firstly, it was architectural. They wanted a periodic interrupt. Instead of just having a periodic timer expire, they decided to set a timer for the unused portion of the period. So if the period was, say, 1 second and they used 600 milliseconds, set a timer for 400 milliseconds. It worked but was very poor architecture. Issue 2: What happens if you use 1.5 seconds of 1 second period. Well, subtracting 1.5 from 1 yields -0.5 seconds. Injecting a negative number into a timer should result in an immediate expiration and interrupt. Except, and this was the third issue, if you use unsigned arithmetic, at which point instead of a small negative number, you get a huge positive number. Like more that 24 hours worth of milliseconds.
I changed the definition of the variable from 'unsigned' to 'signed, removing 'un'. That's 2½ weeks per character, buried in 500,000 lines of code.
I will put 50 years of professional software development (plus another 10 years of amateur playing around) against the course you took.
Additionally, as Principal Engineer for other firms, I was responsible for it all. Software, Electrical, Mechanical, Servo, Communications and Systems Integration. Also mentioning the Bid and Proposal work, installation and Customer management.
In my view, the forum development is doing fine.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Definition: Liquidation: converting assets into cash.
Whilst liquidation is typically associated with bankruptcy, it is not exclusively so. Example: Hornby liquidates old stock via price reductions.
From an American¹ standpoint, I found the word choice acceptable and conveyed the concept Loeweitje wanted. Hattons closed their doors and (likely) converted remaining stock into cash.
Bee
¹Do Americans speak English? 😄
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, 96RAF said:
... you are under no obligation to use the forum.
That conflicts with my CDO. It is the same illness as Obsessive Compulsive Disease, except all the letters are arranged in the proper alphabetical order.
🙃
~~~~
@ColinBHi Colin. I understand your consternation. Your point has been made. Since February, these pages have experienced constant change. It can test a person's patience. It appears to be chaos and turmoil.
But it is not.
The lads are working very hard to make it better. In real time, right before your very eyes. They are accepting feedback from us and this is causing further adaptation and change.
So maybe bear with them while it changes?
Bee
-
2
-
1
-
-
The Hornby webpage now states Locomotion is "available to pre-order". I do not understand the rationale for inhibiting sales for a month. 11 Apr -> 16 May, Locomotion was "unavailable". Are there any guesses as to Hornby's strategy? I'd be interested to hear any speculation.
Bee
-
I am happy to read its not me or my settings. I thought I had somehow bodged everything.
I can wait a bit until its sorted.
Bee
-
2
-
-
Carriages / Wagons for Locomotion No.1
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by What About The Bee
Word choice
PART ONE, Carriage Body Width
When this topic was last visited, I expressed some alternatives as to the width of the carriage body. Did it nestle betwixt the wheels or did the carriage body sit over the top of of those wheels?
Let us revert to the data presented to us in the Durham County Advertiser, dated 1 October 1825, mere days after the S&DR opened.
This coach, named “The Experiment,” is fitted up on the principle of what are called the long-coaches, the passengers sitting face to face along the sides of it. It is calculated to carry 16 or 18 inside, and is intended to travel daily for public convenience between Darlington and Stockton.
There are two other data points to consider, both of which are human factors. The minimum width of a walkway should be 24" and the depth of a seat should be 17¼". These data points can be readily confirmed on the internet.
Suppose the carriage body sits in between the wheels.
Arithmeric Exercise One:
Add up everyrhing but the aisle, to see how much would be left for the aisle.
Track gauge 4'8½" = 56½"
Flange thickness (from DOGA) 2.19" × 2 = 4⅜"
Wheel clearance to carriage 2" × 2= 4"
Wall thickness 3" × 2 = 6"
Seat depth typ 17¼ × 2 = 34½"
Sum 48⅞"
56½" - 48⅞" = 7⅝"
An aisle should be sufficient to walk in. 7⅝" is not a sufficiently wide walkway , especially in a long well as deep as the height of a chair seat, roughly 20" deep.
Arithmeric Exercise Two
Suppose I guarantee a standard walkway; how deep are the seats?
Per the internet, the minimum walkway width for one person is 24".
[Both sides) Flange+Clearance+ wall thickness = 14⅜"
Add the aisle @24" = 38⅜"
Subtract from track gauge
56½" - 38⅜" = 18⅛"
Divide by 2, as there are two parallel rows per the Durham County Advertiser. 9¹/₁₆" seat depth. That is a very shallow seat indeed.
Arithmetic Exercise Three
Now suppose I permit the carriage body to overhang the wheels.
Aisle 24"
Seats 17¼ " ×2 = 34½"
Walls 3" × 2 = 6"
24" + 34¼" + 6" = 64½"
Nicholas Wood, 1853, states 1825 S&DR rail was malleable (wrought) iron, 28 lbs per yard. The French text translated the word as "wavy", meaning fishbelly rail. This is consistent with the Longridge illustration, which shows fishbelly rail.
Width of 28lb rail 1¾" × 2 = 3½"
Gauge 56½"
56½" + 3½" = 60"
To have standard seating and standard walkways, the carriage overhangs the outside of the RAIL by 2¼" per side. Less than 1mm in OO.
Conclusion #1: I think this finally puts paid to the "shed on wheels" illustration that is often proffered as "Experiment" in Smiles of 1863.
Not only is the illustration nearly 40 years out of date, the numbers illustrated here preclude this from consideration. Either the aisle is far too narrow or the seats are far too shallow.
We must consider that public transportation was available in 1825. Horse drawn coach advertisements abound in the press, and these had seats and aisles. The public would expect similar accomodation from the S&DR.
Conclusion #2: "Experiment" has a carriage body which overhangs the wheels.
PART TWO: Carriage body elevation
From John Dobbins, we know the seat back came up to approximately the middle of passenger backs. Human factor engineering says the top of our heads are ~36" over the seat. ½ way up is 18". Further, that the top of the seat back is nearly exactly the height of a chaldron.
From the internet, we can see that the height of a chair seat is just over 20 inches.
From these data points, as can assign elevations to a carriage body seating unit. It now has this appearance.
Of note is the incredible gap between the chassis and the carriage body. But in following the known datapoints, the CAD model must remain true.
This could easily accommodate a bogie arrangement. The four axle arrangement begs the question. Yet we find no notice of bogies in until the aquatint of the log waggon on the LMR, 1834. The Duke of Wellington carriage may or may not have had bogies . An interesting theory, but we simply do not know.
Instead of assuming a bogie arrangement, in the absence of evidence, I will keep to a rigid chassis, without bogies.
PART THREE: Going around Second Radius (or indeed any radius) Curves.
Simply put, lateral compliance, permits multi-axle travel around a curve. Nearly every steam locomotive in your fleet performs this magical feat. The side to side play permitted is a function of the track radius of curvature, the wheel diameter, the flange height and the longitudinal axle distribution on the locomotive.
Equation One: Wheelbase extension via flange height.
Equation Two: define lateral play as a function of true wheelbase. Y is the side to side play required. M is the nominal wheelbase. X's are leading and trailing flange wheel base extensions
In order to reduce friction and permit easy side to side motion, it is a good idea to use brass axle bushes. All of these require a good working knowledge of the dimensions of the exact parts. I have assumed some numbers, so as to get an initial idea of the feasibility of the design. Frankly put, it is feasible and the equations I wrote check against FreeCAD.¹
I've placed the order for the exact parts. The parts are coming from the UK. I will definitely adjust the design and publish my final numbers once I have a firm measurement of the parts.
Here, I show the chassis and axles, within the lateral compliance designed, on a second radius curve (R2).
PART FOUR Carriage Decoration
I've added Experiment to the side of the carriage body. Given the Dobbins illustration, I think there is a half round molding at top and bottom, suggesting that the letters are raised. Thus, I have made this part of the CAD.
The superstructure consists of the posts and roof.
PART FIVE. The Cradle.
The cradle, that supports the carriage body seating unit is entirely speculative. Backhouse does not draw a single chassis for any member in the consist. Dobbins hides the chassis behind a wall, as previously discussed.
But the seats cannot float over the chassis like a blimp. I've designed a simple cradle that would support the seating unit and transfer the passenger load down into the chassis from the seating unit.
That's enough for now. Next update when wheelsets and bushings arrive.
Bee
¹Yes, I wrote my own equations. There are other ways to solve for these values. I prefer trigonometry.