What About The Bee

Correct @Stephen-1260829 What is never a barrier wagon? An empty tank. Those empties can be fume filled. They make the biggest boom. Bee

A barrier wagon is an empty wagon, put in between the locomotive and the first loaded wagon. If the loaded wagon goes boom, it is kept far enough away by the barrier wagon Bee

A deadline has incredible motivating factors. Keep going @Trevor-1284476you will succeed! Bee

@Brew Man The most important thing is to not skip steps. At first, it seems like they are a waste of time. They are most decidedly not. As the models get more complicated, the steps you skipped will haunt you. Make it a habit to follow what he tells you to do. It will become clear later on, and good habits will already be established. Bee

For FreeCAD, this is the actual series I got started with The Hardware Guy He gets you started with the basics Bee

Because, clearly, ½ foot = 5 inches. Ah, the joys of decimalization. 🤣 Bee

Re: The Gaunless River. I surrender the field. I have no wish to interfere with local pride. I hereby accept that the Gaunless is a river. I was attempting to estimate the span between buttresses, not disparage the river. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunless_Bridge states that the total span between buttresses was 50 feet, with the longest section at 12' 5". Apparently, the editor of the Wikipedia page doesn't understand imperial measurements and arithmetic. Bee

That's right @JJ73. They are offering quite a few other running numbers https://rapidotrains.co.uk/mr-483-class/

That is the entirety of the bridge! Four spans. George originally built it with three, but due to ice flow(?) issues, he re-built it with four. Just as shown in The Engineer illustration of 1875 (see initial post). Buttress to Buttress, it appears about (roughly by eye, nothing scientific) to be 40ish feet or thereabouts. Perhaps as much as 48 feet, if we can go by the 4 foot sections of black fence. Bee

Hi @Deem I gave it three days, hopeful that someone was willing to share their CAD work with you. This is the underlying dilemma with 3D printing. If you haven't the design, the printer cannot print it. Plenty of free designs available, but when there is a want a particular part, it remains unfulfilled. You will apparently have to design the part yourself. I've been using FreeCAD to design. Passing those designs to a 3D printing house has proved successful. You may wish to try your hand at FreeCAD, or another CAD program, if that suits your fancy. I suspect you have an existing part that you wish to copy, so that can be a real advantage. Bee

Hilariously, I seem to have posted this two hours too early. I guess 1 part per million is acceptable. OO Locomotion No.1 is now due 13 Nov. My excitement is palpable. Hurry Hornby, before I burst in anticipation. Thanks for the correction on the bridge location @Rallymatt. I could not understand why this looked so good. Is this the restored bridge at Shildon? Bee ¹ 2 hours / (199 years × 365.25 days per year × 24 hours per day) = 0.000001

Today, 27 Sept 2024, is the 199th anniversary of the opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. The first public railway operated by steam locomotives. While I have focused on the locomotives and rolling stock in other threads, there are other things to see. Here are some other views of the railway. Skerne Bridge over the Skerne River Painting by John Dobbin, first hand observer, created decades later from memory and sketches. The crowd on Opening Day was estimated, at the time, to be 40,000 persons. The bridge is still in use as a railway bridge. The Brusselton Inclined Planes. Adamson, 1826. In between the coal and the harbor was Brusselton. Much like the later steep inclines on the LMR, the locomotives could not manage steep inclines. A stationary winding engine was housed at the apex of the hill. A stationary engine made by Robert Stephenson and Co. It was replaced by 1831 with a stationary engine by a different manufacturer. The slopes are as you see, unequal. The west side or image right was 1,960 yards in length, rising 150 feet. This is a 2½% grade. The east side or image left was 800 yards with a 90 feet rise. This is a 3¾% grade. To account for this, the diameters of the winding drums were unequal. The longer incline used the larger drum. Thus the system increased efficiency by using one consist as an offset balance against the consist on the other incline, arriving simultaneously due to the unequal drum diameter. View of the Brusselton Engine House, 1875. Fifty years after opening day. The engine house was closed as a more efficient route was installed, around Brusselton. The River Gaunless also needed to be crossed. George put in a cast iron bridge in 1823. The bridge was situated between the Brusselton and Etherley inclines, so it was worked by horses, not traveling engines. I must say, on satellite view, the word "river" appears to quite generous. Gaunless Bridge, as illustrated in The Engineer, 1875. Parts of this bridge are preserved at the Science Museum. This bridge is an obvious target for 3D printing for a layout. Visually unusual and completely free standing , no buttresses needed. Bee

Hi @JJ73 Atom posted about Rapido's new 2P, which is for the Midland Railway. I think that is the theme of your layout. Midland [Monsul Model] Railway. Bee

A picture is worth 1000 words

Those look like something appropriate for the Triple-M R. Hopefully @JJ73sees them Bee

My condolences to his widow Heather. I will remember Yelrow's knowledge and willingness to share. He was a good lad. RIP Bee

In another thread, I found that Locomotion No.1 had approximately 6.8 horsepower on Opening Day (under the assumption I did the maths correctly.) Union Pacific 4014 is stated to have 7000 horsepower. A ratio of ~ 1 : 1000 "Just slightly more ...." 🙃 I've been waiting days for this one Bee

'Common knowledge' says that Active was the first locomotive with coupling rods. This is repeated everywhere you look, sometimes with the word "probably". I present herein some reasonable contrarian arguments for your consideration. Can I unequivocally state Active had a chain on Opening Day? No, I can not. Can I unequivocally state Active had coupling rods? By May of 1827, yes I can, clearly so. But what of Opening Day on the Stockton and Darlington Railway. That's a horse of a different color. PART 1, The Letter The second Traveling Engine presented to the Stockton and Darlington Railway was named "Hope". List of the first Traveling Engines on the S&DR, Wood, Practical Treatise, 1838 Delivered to the S&DR in October 1825. This TE was the one that gave so much trouble to the S&DR, with its novel features not trialed before delivery. The locomotive that caused the S&DR to admonish Robert Stephenson and Co about sending untested equipment. We do have a letter from George Stephenson to Timothy Hackworth, the first Superintendent of the railway at the S&DR. A position Hackworth held until 1840. That Timothy Hackworth, of San Pariel and Rainhill fame. Dated 12 January 1826, a mere 3½ months after Opening Day. ÷÷÷ "Dear Timothy "If you have any fear or trouble with the cranks, let me know by return of post, and I will send the long ones over and two single crank pins to fit the large holes of the wheels. It appears to me that one of the side rods must have bent to let the other get over the centre, otherwise it could not get past. "How does the new plan of wheels do? Is there any appearance of working loose? How does the old engine get on? ".... [some unimportant matters for this discussion follow] "I am, Dear Timothy, Yours Sincerely "[signed] Geo. Stephenson ÷÷÷÷÷ The first thing of note is that George is discussing two Traveling Engines. Active (Locomotion) and Hope. This is clear from the explicit reference to the "old engine". George uses the word cranks and further on, crank pins. There is only one identifiable crank (not crank pin) on these Traveling Engines, and that is the return crank on the wheel for quartering. Note that there must have been a problem with these return cranks, as George constructs a sentence so as to assuage Hackworth's concerns. George uses the phrase "side rod". Newton's London Journal in 1825, calls the rods running down from the cross beam "sweep rods". George clearly communicated with Newton, and I find it strange that George would communicate independently with both Newton and Hackworth in such a short period of time, and call rods by different names. Thus "side rods" cannot be "sweep rods". From earlier discussion, we know "sweep rods" are connecting rods, the rods that connect the piston to the wheels. Are the "side rods" the elusive coupling rods, that couple wheels together? George states that a side rod must have bent, to allow the other to get over center. This cannot be a sweep rod, since the left and right sides of an axle have identical quartering. There is no way to change the quartering phase on a singular axle, to get over centre, no matter how the sweep rod is bent. Thus, a side rod must refer to what is now known as a coupling rod. On a TE, the coupling rods are always in perfect phase with each other. Unlike a more modern steam locomotive, the coupling rods match on the left and right sides. They are not 90° out of phase. When the coupling rod is most forward, and begins its stoke to the rear, there is an uncertainty which way the other end of the rod will go, up or down. On a more modern steam locomotive, that doesn't matter, since the coupling rod on the other side is quartered and thus keep the uncertainty from having any effect. But when both rods are in phase, the uncertainty can cause the coupling rods to criss cross. Put another way, the front axle has the coupling rod positioned as far forward as it can go. Both sides are the same. The front wheels turn a fraction more. Both coupling rods are moved to the rear. The uncertainty drives the left coupling rod up, the right coupling rod down. This force could certainly bend rods and move return crank phasing. Can't happen when the opposing rods are 90° out of phase, but these rods are perfectly in phase. Additionally, if a side rod is bent, as George theorizes, then it may never get over center and be forced back from whence it came. George then asks how does the new plan of wheels do. The spokes take up all the forces. The spokes can obviously break. And Timothy Hackworth does complain of the wheels in November 1825, requesting replacements. Exactly what the new plan of wheels was is not recorded. If you look at Brewster (previous post), you may detect a ring on the wheel where the sweep and side rods connected. The plan there was all the spokes are connected by a ring, presumably of metal. Another plan was the one we see reported by the Prussian Engineers who visited the S&DR in May 1827, the two part plug wheels we see on Locomotion today. Essentially a ring of cast iron centered on a cast disk of iron with oak centering plugs. No need for a dramatically stiffer wheel or spoke, if the forces are transmitted through the chain. Only coupling rods demand stiffer wheels. And, then, by the way, George asks "How does the old engine get on?" Note the location, at the very end of the discussion on the traveling engines. Almost an afterthought, it distinguishes itself from what came before. There is no need to denote the "old" engine, except to differentiate it from the new engine. In my view, all that comes before that sentence is about Hope, the new engine. Why ask about the old engine if it is identical to the new engine? Indeed, if identically configured, the discussion would apply to both. But George specifically asks about the old engine. Telling. Plenty of evidence here that Hope had coupling rods. But evidence for Active? PART 2: The Load The much repeated load on Opening Day was: five waggons loaded with coal, with passengers sat on the top; one waggon with sacks of flour, with passengers amongst them; one waggon with ‘surveyors and engineers’; Experiment passenger carriage in which the railway’s directors and ‘other proprietors’ were seated; six waggons filled with ‘strangers’; fourteen waggons filled with workmen and others; six waggons loaded with coal with passengers sat on top. The passenger count was estimated to be 700 persons, with the total load estimated, at the time, to be 80 tons. In 1832, it was empirically found that 8 pounds of force were required to move a one ton weight on rail. Now we can expect that more force was required to move a ton in 1825, but the figure will serve as an interesting strawman. Tractive effort of 8 pounds per ton. On Opening Day, the load was estimated to be 80 tons. Therefore, Active must have produced at a minimum 640 pounds of tractive effort. We also know the velocity on Opening Day was a mind blowing 4 mph! Crushed to atoms by the extreme velocity! If I have done the maths correctly, that equates to 6.8 horsepower, or just a little less than a riding lawn mower. What I am concerned with is the force applied when the side or coupling rods criss cross. The pistons are 9" diameter, yielding an area of 63.62 in². As Active operated at 30 psi, the linear thrust will be 1908.6 lbf. That is a significant amount of force, which could bend a long coupling rod, move a return crank or break a spoke. I ask myself, why was Active capable of handling these forces, when Hope was not. A chain transfers forces through tension, it cannot transfer forces via compression. We cannot push a string, it simply does not work. A coupling rod transfers forces in both tension and compression. When the uncertainty in direction causes the coupling rods to criss cross, the compressive forces applied can cause the noted failures. Further, a chain applies forces to the wheel with cogs, a 2 inch wide sprocket. A side rod applies forces to a spoke on a wheel. Spokes are excellent in compression when the axle is over the felloe. But a force applied laterally between the hub and felloe is a bending force. The spoke could have been designed, had they modern beam bending theory. They did not, material sciences in 1825 wre not as they are today. Instead, they went for rings and plug wheels. And yet, Active did not experience the failures. But Hope did. Telling. Part Three 'Common knowledge' says that Active was the first locomotive with coupling rods. This is repeated everywhere you look, sometimes with the word "probably". Hope clearly did have side rods per George Stephenson in 1826. Hope arrived shortly after Active. But that simply does not mean nor require Active to have side rods. As late as 1923, Young writes that Locomotion was originally fitted with parallel motion. Clearly an error, the contemporary depictions are all slide-bar. Young also asserts Locomotion had coupling rods on Opening Day. The evidence he presents is that Hackworth proposed coupling rods before his departure from Robert Stephenson and Co in 1824. Active was delivered in Sept 1825. That is scant evidence indeed. Hackworth was not present as Active was rushed to completion. In 2023, Bailey and Davidson drop the parallel motion assertion for opening day and agree it was slide bar. I agree. They still assert coupling rods, but cover their bet by including the word "probably". What is certain is that the transition from chain to coupling rods did occur at the S&DR. Locomotion was likely converted to coupling rods at the same time it was converted to parallel motion. By May 1827, with the report of the Prussian Engineers, we know that Locomotion had parallel motion. Locomotion had the slide bar arrangement from Sept 1825 to May 1827, or 20 months at the most; likely far less. In 1827, Hackworth constructed Royal George for the S&DR, an 0-6-0. The pistons are moved to either side. Axles are quartered by side not by axle. Coupling rods present "Royal George" S&DR No.5 1827 Drawing from "The Engineer" 1857. In 1829, Hackworth presented San Pariel, an 0-4-0, he utilized proper coupling rods, definitely properly quartered. Mechanics Magazine, 1829. San Pariel There is no doubt that Hackworth championed coupling rods. He would have been quite influential in his role as Superintendent of the locomotives at the S&DR. Bee