What About The Bee

Hi LT&SR_NSE Yes, indeed. There are quite a few multi-part solutions available. I did consider the two halves solution. It will certainly function and so I have not rejected it. My thought is to walk down the well trodden path that Hornby uses, to wit: socket and groove. It is simplicity itself, with the complexity in the materials science and mechanical engineering. How far can I deform a shape, without permanently deformation (yield). That is, will it spring back, or have I changed its shape. In some materials, yield is much lower than rupture (ultimate yield). In others, it is not and the material breaks. In the case of fine detail plastic, the material is relatively stiff, so there is little deformation before yield. Yield is close to ultimate yield, meaning it shatters. It is not an ideal candidate for the socket and groove. It might be made to function with fine detail plastic, but control of parameters is required. Its an interesting problem. One that I hope to resolve! Bee

Thanks 81F, I will study this response. I have been looking at the elasticity numbers in the materials section, in a combined materials model. Axle bearings one material, carriage body fine detail plastic. Bee

I waited a few days, so as to illustrate the point a bit more clearly. ÷÷÷÷÷÷ Suppose I say: My comment was in regards to the format, not the content. Who am I replying to? If you have been reading this thread in detail, you may know. Yet a casual reader would not. I occasionally encounter this behavior here. A comment that seems disconnected, an ambiguous response. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Suppose I say: @Aussie Fredmy comment was in regards to the format, not the content. Okay, it is clear I am addressing Fred, but what am I discussing? Its unclear. You could go back and re-read the thread, looking for what Fred said. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Suppose I say: And I reply with @Aussie Fredmy comment was in regards to the format, not the content. So now, with the quoted snippet, not only does Fred know he is being addressed, but Fred can also know the meaning of the response. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ I could take this one step further, placing my reference to the Reddit tree structure of comments, then Fred's statement and my response. But I will hold off on the dreadfully obvious. ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ Finally, my apologies Aussie Fred, for using you as a strawman. I do understand your point about Reddit. It is indeed filled with nonsense. Please do not take any umbrage with my remarks here. The intention is to illustrate addressing individuals and quoting, not to conflate your statement. Thank you for your understanding Bee

Making the chassis has two parts. Part 1 is the artistry of horn guides, horn blocks, springs, buffers and the like. I do believe that part 1 is just judgment and artistry. The only critical nature is that it is representative of the carriage. I must only satisfy myself in this representation, so this really isn't a worry. Part 2 is the pinpoint axle and pinpoint socket bearings. This is a geometric issue. If I get the geometry wrong, the carriage may not function at all. It may function but track crazily. It may ride tilted or askew. The first thing to consider are the lengths. In image 1, observe the length of the axle and the bearing distance between the bases of the pinpoint sockets. It should be clear to you that the axle length should be long enough to extend into the pinpoint sockets on both sides, but not be longer than the bearing distance. If too long, it binds. If too short, it may fall out or permit the axle to take an angle to the block, creating that tilted carriage. In image 2, I have placed the point of the axle into the point of the socket in the pinpoint bearing on the right. Without a groove, it can be observed that to force the axle into the other socket, the block must flex quite a bit. There is also the issue of the pinpoint of the axle interfering with the bearing socket, because the angle of the socket is too shallow. I could never achieve this position without bending the axle or shattering the bearing socket. In Image 3, I have added a groove. The first thing of note is that the axle is much closer to insertion. There is angular clearance for the pinpoint axle. Keeping the angle of the pinpoint socket close to the angle of the pinpoint axle minimizes skew and tilt. In image 4, the critical interference is shown. The axle is just a tiny bit longer than the insertion distance. This only requires a tiny bit of block flex to enter. There must be a tiny bit of interference, otherwise if the axle is too short, it may fall out. In image 5, the axle is in place. Observe that the axle is just shorter than the bearing distance. The angles are fairly close. This is the goal position. With these requirements in mind, I am determined to use a closely matched pair of wheel sets. The axle length is within 0.010 mm of each other. They are on hand. I expect these to be the experimental set, to see if my design criteria is acceptable. I intend to print the yellow block and test. With a set of working criteria, I can easily redesign to Hornby wheelsets for future carriages. With part 2 off to Shapeways, I can go back to part one, leaving the inside of the block blank, until the experiment is complete. I am not saying "this is how to do it". I am saying "this is what I did". Further, until I have a pinpoint wheel set functioning in a pinpoint block, there will be no numerical values to what you are seeing here. I will update these when I do have a working model. Bee

Hi Trainman You can do a continuity check from the wheels to the wires at the tender interface. These will be your pickups. Then do the same from the tender wheels to the wires at the tender interface. Keep the same side wheels with same side continuity. Bee

I've got the width at the top of the elliptical openings at just over 24 scale inches (0.622 meters) and the solid between the openings, where the seats reside, at just over 15 scale inches (0.395 meters). The depth of the seat is shallower than the depth of modern seats. If it is back to back seating, each passenger gets 7½ inches. Cramped isn't the word. You are correct. It is about ⅓ longer. This image, by Shaw, takes the two carriages from one consist. With pixel addresses, I get the chassis at 1.27 times longer which is very close indeed to ⅓. You will also note, in the upper left hand corner, how low the canopy is on the swingback church pew carriage. Exactly as Shaw drew it. That is a difficulty I have yet to resolve. The "seat" is somehow attached to the endplate. When all the swingbacks are arranged so that passengers face to the left of the image (as shown), the last opening on the right is wide open. A shallow seat could be in that rightmost compartment and still provide leg room. Yet if there were passengers on the endplate on the left, all those passengers in the left "compartment" will have cramped leg room. Now flip the swingbacks over. All the passengers in swingbacks face right. The opening on the left is free, and the cramped area would be on the right. Perhaps it is a shallow folding bench on each end? Folded into position for use but only when suitable? I have not addressed this in the model. Sharp eye there @81F I do think the design is symmetric. It almost begs to be by the description in the Liverpool Albion. My comments about the purpose of the cutouts are also entirely speculative. The entire thing is confused. Later depictions, not by Shaw, show one cutout per opening, but the canopy is too high. Shaw shows this weird arrangement and the canopy is incredibly low. We only have a handful of primary depictions of the Swingback Church Pew type. Canopies were installed starting in 1832, but this carriage type was fielded starting in 1829. A canopy on this carriage type was therefore an afterthought by the LMR. Ackermann published this Shaw drawing in 1833, but the drawing could easily have been created in 1832. Perhaps the cutouts are a function of early experimentation. I'm not sure we will ever have a definitive answer to the purpose of the cutouts, just these handful of strange depictions. Bee

In the previous post, I made the assertion that we may have witnessed a rare error by Issac Shaw, known good observer. Intellectual honesty forces me to retract that assertion. I simply was wrong. I have been putting the Swingback Church Pew into CAD. In doing so, I must constantly reference the aquatint drawings, so as to accurately depict the details. And those details revealed pertinent information. My assertion was based upon those circular cutouts in the canopy, and how they did not align with the doorway openings. The 1834 Ackermann aquatint of this carriage has a glaring error. We know this to have swingback seating. The benches should be rows of passengers, facing either Liverpool or facing Manchester, as the Liverpool Albion reports. Yet the 1834 depiction shows passengers seated back to back, which conflicts with the report. Shaw properly depicts the passengers all facing one way, like church pews. The 1834 canopy height and the 1834 passenger seating have caused me to discount the 1834 depiction. The 1834 may be an accurate depiction, it may not. Shaw depicts what the Liverpool Albion states. If that is correct, then the canopy must also be correct. Shaw is the authority for the details of the carriage and canopy. As I studied the canopy, I realized that every row did have access to a circular cutout. While not ideal, this is one possible solution of where to put your head as you get yourself off of or onto the carriage. This is the current state of the CAD model. The carriage shell, canopy posts and canopy are all depicted; as well as the benches. No chassis or swingbacks yet. This is compared to the carriage to the right in the 1833 depiction I think this a reasonable match. It will obviously be further tweaked into submission as I go. I will now shift into the chassis development. I will use pinpoint axles, like all of Hornby's Era 1 rolling stock. I note the axle ends are a conic, they are shaped like an ice cream cone. The depression that axle end fits into is a conic, also shaped like an ice cream cone. I did a one time, one axle, one location measurement, and got side to side play of 1.1 mm. That is, the axle can be moved side to side relative to the carriage, and it moves a total of 1.1 mm. Now obviously, I can measure many of these Era 1 carriages, many times and take more care in the measurents, but this may be a data point a correspondent knows from experience What is the nominal side to side play for pin point axles? I would be most appreciative you letting me know! Bee

You may have it right Fishy. It is elegantly done. Plus, new forum, new behaviors. Many social media chats have a problem. It is difficult to follow a conversation when there are many responding to many, in one thread. Even with addressing, a conversation within that thread is hard to follow. What, precisely, are is a correspondent responding to? The only social media that beautifully resolves this issue is Reddit. The tree structure provided by Reddit is awesome. Quoting a snippet from an individual not only addresses the individual, but shows exactly what is being responded to. That I like. 🐝 <--- a bee

https://www.ebay.ph/itm/126348234084 Photographs here, while the listing lasts

Continuing to report on 2nd class carriages of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, I will investigate one of the earliest carriages on record for the LMR. On the 27th of July 1829, the Liverpool Albion provides us with a description of the carriage: "The next grade of machine is like a compartmented, oblong square of church pews; without doors, the ends neatly painted, and it is boxed in at the front and back, with panelled work, surmounted by a small railing or balustrade. The rails for the support of the back turn over, so that the passengers may face which way they please, and the machine never requires to be turned around. In other words, the Liverpool end will be the back to Manchester, and the front in returning." As Opening Day was 15 Sept 1830, the Liverpool Albion described this carriage more than 1 year before the railway opened. It also appears in the Ackermann long aquatint consist prints in 1834, so this carriage type had longevity. The phrase "rails for the support of the back turnover" is quite interesting. In current times, we call this swingback seating. Swingback seating is used in marine applications. Follow this link to see illustrations of the type. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=swingback+seat As is typical of early 2nd class carriages, they began service without any canopy. This illustration by Reynolds shows 2 of these carriages without canopy. I know this is a rather poor sketch, but due to its unique portrayal is included here. This 1833 portrayal by Issac Shaw, known good observer, is presented by Ackermann. It is shown side by side with the more familiar blue 2nd canopy carriage. Note that the canopy is significantly lower than the blue 2nd canopy. To account for this lowered height, there appear to be cutouts in the canopy. Thus, passengers could enter and exit without bashing their heads. Oddly, the cutouts do not align with the doorways. The next portrayal is the 1834 illustration presented by Ackermann. The 1834 Ackermann print does not possess the Shaw signature, leading me to believe Ackermann had a staff artist do the work. Here, I note the canopy cutouts now have one for each doorway, supporting the head bashing theory. Yet the canopy is raised to the same height as the blue 2nd canopy, thus eliminating the need for cutouts. From this evidence, I offer that we may detect a rare error by Shaw. Nearly all depictions of this canopy show the cutouts. The cutouts are only required if the canopy is lower. Yet 3 cutouts does not make any sense. I believe the correct answer is that the canopy was lower, yet the Shaw depiction is missing the correct quantity. There are a few more observations I can make. 1)The 1833 depiction shows 6 doorways, the 1834 depiction 5. Reynolds shows 4 doorways. Shaw must have seen these carriages, they were on the railway from the earliest days. Perhaps the carriages came in many types. 2)The swingback seats appear to be fairly tall relative to the floor. Passenger thighs are mostly portrayed at angles, thighs not parallel to the floor when the passenger is seated. Tighter legroom is not just a feature of modern aviation. 3) Seating appears to be 4 abreast. There are 5 swingback seats and two fixed seats, one at either end of the carriage. If all seats are occupied, that is (5 swingback + 2 fixed) × 4 abreast = 28 passengers per carriage. Compare to the standard blue 2nd at 24 passengers, and we may understand the utility and longevity. A comparison of this carriage, using the 1834 portrayal shows that even when the carriage is shown with only 5 doorways, the carriage is significantly longer than the blue second. The wheelbase is also longer than the 2nd blue carriage, in the exact same consist I would like to model this carriage, but am challenged by the length. I cannot simply use the standard Hornby chassis. The Hornby chassis is too short and I am unwilling to compromise. It should therefore prove exciting to model, as it includes a novel chassis. Further, in my usual desire to over spec any model, I would very much like the swingback seats to operate. 3D printing offers the ability to have articulated parts printed, making operational swing back seats a distinct possibility. Looks like fun! Bee