What About The Bee

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

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? Horse Drawn Omnibus Images 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.

You are right John. I plead guilty. My apologies. Sincerely Bee

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

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

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? 😄

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

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

Some more video by the NRM vis Locomotion No.1 Bee

Throughout this thread, we have examined several candidates and finally arrived independently at the Dobbins/Backhouse images, just as the researcher at Friends of the Stockton and Darlington group did. The solution for both researchers identical. With Locomotion No.1 edging closer, we all would like some rolling stock to go with the locomotive. Of course, Accurascale's chaldrons are perfect for this. But what if you wanted the passenger carriage Union or Defiance? We have Longridge's wonderful print, showing this carriage type in consist. What other waggons are in that consist? Chaldrons. What if you wanted the passenger carriage Experiment, as illustrated by Dobbins and Backhouse. Wonderful drawings, with the carriage in consist. What other waggons are in those consists? Chaldrons. Therefore, to properly scale those passenger carriages, they should be modeled in reference to a standard, to wit: an Accurascale Chaldron. To that end, I've reverse engineered and sketched up an Accurascale Chaldron. No details. No split spoke wheels. No flanges. Just a basic chaldron, unadorned. The standard candle, defined. Bee

I never made a secret of it JJ. Yes, I am in the USA. @JJ73

Thanks JJ. That is a very old joke in the US. On a different note, Keith Appleton over on YouTube does repairs on live steam models, live steam toys, those ride on live steam locomotives and indeed has a Showman's Engine. Valve jobs. Triple expansion engines. Steam powered pumps, etc. The man is a master of steam. He is a bit of a curmudgeon, but very clearly knows his stuff. If you want to see and learn about live steam, Keith Appleton is the one to watch. https://youtube.com/@keithappleton?si=DhsYZccb40UexoS6 Bee

0 to 60 mph in.... Got a calendar handy?? 😄 Bee

The RC network (resistor capacitor network) was to suppress electronic noise that would be picked up on analog TV and Radio receivers. Over The Air receivers. The RC network is really an artifact of days gone by. Nothing to do with the performance of your locomotives, merely a nod to an antiquated broadcast method. You may hear the noise if you tune into an AM (amplitude modulation) radio station if conditions are just right. The noise emitted by the locomotive is broad band noise, yet at a reasonably low amplitude. Bee

This update will begin with reference to the 1833 Ackermann aquatint, by Shaw. I previously stated that there was no image evidence of any seating. I was wrong. I have finally noticed some! There are some rectangular shaped lines under the soldier. They appear to be evidence of the seat. A bench horizontally, supported by upright posts on the sides? My seats may have more members than the illustration, but at last, we can see what Shaw saw. Further, the end benches must be extremely shallow. They are not visible in the front of the carriage, at the elliptical opening. If it was deep, we would see it. But the passenger in the blue dress has her thigh at quite a steep angle. As she is indeed seated, this can only imply a very shallow seat. I have drawn mine at a scale 6 inches The buffer beam is detailed. This will have the wire couplings I applied to my 1980s Rocket Carriages, R796. I cannot print coupling posts, they will simply shear apart under load. Which brings me to the end to end transmission of drag force. The wire must be attached to the carriage. I have selected a generic m1.6×3 screw and corresponding flat washer. When tightening this screw, the washer should remain perpendicular to the screw, otherwise, the wire can be ejected out. The solution is easy, put a wire on both sides of the screw. That is when I realized, making that spacer wire continuous from one screw to the other transmits all the drag force from the lead coupling to trailing coupling. I will not be trying to pull the carriage apart in consist, all the force goes thru the wires and washers. The Swingback Church Pew 2nd Class carriage is ready for print. Next update will be actual parts. Bee