What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,944 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
I had no idea what "effluxion of time" meant. Was it the usual 1800s literary flourish? I looked it up. To save others the effort, here is the legal definition:
"Effluxion of time is the expiration of a lease term due to a natural passing of time rather than from a specific action or event. This phrase can also be used to indicate the conclusion or expiration of an agreement in simple writing when the conclusion or expiration occurs through a natural course of events. "
So, rereading the legal notice in the London Gazette, it appears that the firm Adams and Hooper ends in 1845, as their contract concluded.
Simon, Are you inferring that the Saloon could not have a Hooper maker's plate, since Adams and Hooper terminated in 1845?
The most simple way to explain this is service. After construction, the carriage may need service, for whatever reason. The successor firm Hooper, formerly Adams and Hooper, replaces the old tag with the new one at time of service. I would think this normal practice. My mechanic changes his service tag out on my vehicle upon every visit.
Another way. The Science Museum abbreviated the carriage maker description. It is a tiny phrase in long description, the writer was sloppy. It refers to the firm by the modern name, instead of the predecessor. If so, shame on the museum.
I am not dying on this hill. I'm just going by what the Science Museum states, 1842.
Bee
-
Agreed LT&SR_NSE, staff that cares does a better job. We are on the same page.
I think the only disagreement may be where the error arises. It is unfair to blame the lad who carefully installs the number he or she has been provided. Sure, it they had more knowledge, they might question it. But even an in-house web team cannot be held responsible.
It would be a good idea for the responsible parties at Hornby, who specify the data, to be responsible for it. For heavens sake, do the sheep wagons really require R3? Who thought that? Someone specified that. And it was approved. By in house staff.
I think I fixed my post, I must really stop copying Hornby statements and pasting them here. Nothing but trouble
Bee
-
Hi 96RAF
That is all good for moderators. You approve your own images, making the process quite straightforward.
For those of us without such privileges, there is the unavoidable wait for approval. The image finally appears. Its 90° out. So what am I to do? Delete it and resubmit after editing. Sure, I can do that. And wait again for approval. That plays havoc in a spirited conversation.
Or I can remember to pass every image through my photo tools, saving every image yet again. Using the newly saved image in the post. Then deleting the edited image copy, because it has no other real use. Wasn't the photograph enough?
Or I can beg for succor. Plead for help, requesting a moderator do it. As moderators are unpaid and simply have other things to do, I feel bad about this.
I would prefer being able to do this myself. Fix the orientation of an approved image.
Bee
-
Hello LT&SR_NSE
For the record, I have heard back from a Hornby representative, who said: "Thank you for sending this over. I will forward this to our online team."
I will now patiently wait to see if they do something / anything with the information.
I think the GIGO principle is at work here. Garbage In Garbage Out. Data supplied by Hornby to the online team, remarkably, appears on line. Whilst incongruities may jump off the page to some, the requirement to accurately reflect the data Hornby provided will take precedence. It is not the job of the online team to ensure the data is technically correct, rather, it is their job to ensure the data on the website matches the data provided. GIGO.
When a locomotive, carriage or wagon is assigned, there should be a definition of the radius the stock is intended to go around. That definition may either come from Engineering or Marketing, but certainly, someone should specify that. As many models are shown in Range Release before Engineering designs them, this means Marketing specifies the radius for new models. For models which have historical precedence, like Era 1 rolling stock using the same chassis, the minimum radius is defined by prior Engineering efforts.
All of this leads me to the conclusion that internal Hornby communications could use a bit of improvement.
There is absolutely no reason that, after 4 years, the minimum radius for Era 1 is not fixed, known and defined.
Bee
-
Hi Simon
From the web page: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co205850/queen-adelaides-saloon-no-2-railway-carriage
"... bodywork being by Hooper..."
From the webpage: https://www.hooperinternational.com/history-hooper-co/
"The company was founded as Adams and Hooper in 1805 and held a royal warrant from 1830..."
For those who do not know https://www.royal.uk/royal-warrants
So we have Hooper, making the body (not the chassis) of the Saloon, because they possessed a royal warrant. That is, the London and Birmingham Railway turned to Hooper to make the carriage body, because Hooper had the royal warrant. It is extremely likely that there is a Hooper maker's plate on the Saloon, which would tie directly into Hooper's records. Again, I expect Hooper to keep immaculate records of goods provided to the royal family.
I look forward to any response you may receive from the Museum. It will be amusing to see how terribly I have that wrong!!
Bee
-
Hello Kasper
Welcome aboard.
About delivery. If the address is incorrect, it cannot be delivered. The package will likely return to Hornby.
I suggest you contact customer service at your next convenience, and provide the tracking number and the order number. Provide the exact address upon request.
They will be able to straighten the error out and get you on your way. It's a minor kerfuffle. Do not panic!!
Bee
-
Hello Three Link
I have not seen the Saloon in real life. It is on my list though!
The photographs show no inter-compartment communication or passageway. What we do see is 4 inside seating in the two aft compartments. 2 inside in the front compartment. That takes up the full width.
Unless the seat backs remove to reveal a secret passageway, like the extension in the rear compartment for the bed into the boot, there would be no room for a passageway.
As to staff, I think they would follow in other carriages, likely a glass carriage. In this period image of the LBR at Euston, you may observe one, on the left.
There are other times when members of the Royal family travel in compartments inaccessible. The horse drawn carriages spring to mind. Certainly, that horse drawn carriage could be stopped, should staff need to do something. But so could a locomotive.
The only alternative would be for staff to ride in the compartment with Adelaide. I have no familiarity with Royal protocol, particularly to understand if that is acceptable or not.
Bee
-
Hello Simon
One of the reasons I do not participate on RMweb is the constant negativity by a very small group of individuals.
Queen Adelaide's Saloon was a bespoke carriage body placed onto a railway chassis by Hooper. Hooper has possessed a Royal Warrant since 1830. Hooper is still in business. You may contact them here
https://www.hooperinternational.com/contact/
Now perhaps it is just me, but I would think any work for a member of the Royal family would be very well recorded by Hooper. Further, my expectation is that the Science Museum have already thought to ask Hooper, and received the date the Science Museum states, to wit: 1842.
In the end, I am not overly fussed by this. The Saloon does exist at the Museum. The Hornby model is fairly faithful to it. It isn't LMR so it was a stretch for me in any event.
Bee
-
It would be ever so nice to have a "rotate image" button, under edits. It would provide a 90° edit to an already approved image.
Let Hornby pick the direction, clockwise or counter clockwise. I do not need control over the direction. I simply press the button the desired number of times.
And this issue would never, ever return. Alleviates moderator work.
If only it could be requested for the next iteration, whenever that might be.
Bee
-
Thank you Going Spare. I have just sent that off to the address you specified.
I thought that perhaps this was the proper venue.
The day I hit the lottery, and buy the company known as Hornby, there may be just a few tiny changes in culture.
Bee
-
Hi Son of Triangman
If it were me, I would consider a well edited, professionally shot series of youTube videos. I would show the product operational, and ease of installation videos, especially for the fence sitters. youTube is a good venue for this type of thing. Its a free repository for corporate videos.
Now usually, when I think of "influencer", I giggle. It's kind of silly. But for a niche product, exposure is the key. We all look on youTube to enjoy what other modelers are doing. I would attempt to get as many "influencers" as possible to try my product. So it can be shown. So other modelers can see it.
I would send FREE samples to folks like Charley at Chadwick Model Railways and Jennifer Kirk and ask them to review the product. I would be exceptionally careful to put a well tested, ready to go product in their hands. DC / DCC, ready to go. I would absolutely not ask for it back, it is theirs to keep. Yes, that costs me money. I trust that my product is good, and that I will get a fair review. I would offer an affiliate sponsorship for referrals, to coax the reviewer into doing the review. Jennifer does this, as does Sam. Essentially, a fee for a referral through a link I provide¹. I would not expect a sugar coated review. Both youTubers have shown that they will call out bad products. But a good review will get me on the map.
I would consider magazines. The thing to consider with magazines is that the advert would need be in every issue for several years to be effective. Not a single ad, repeated ads. I would offer a small discount if they use a code, which is only associated with that magazine. In this way I can measure sales versus advertising; but the thing I am buying is exposure, which may or may not result in direct sales. Magazines are a toss up for me, I wonder if they offer a large enough audience anymore.
Trade shows may be considered. A working model, shown to thousands, is reasonable marketing exposure. Put it on a big screen TV, let folks see it as they walk on by. Not all will stop, but many will look. I would not count on in-show sales to fund my effort, although that would be nice. I just want to be seen. I would make absolutely sure to have several working models ready to go. Level crossing gates beating like a drum may not last forever. But a quick replacement, in view of the public, will convince them of the ease of installation. Maybe even a display of the installation, again, for the fence sitters.
While the romanticism of the local model shop runs thick through the veins of many, this will be the least likely venue for exposure. The LMS guy is not going to push my product. It will be an effort to just put 10 units on his shelf, out of which he will make a meager amount of money, not a terrific incentive. To an audience that is his client base. It will be nice to generate sales this way, but they will be all at keystone² and not the exposure I need.
Lastly, I would consider that all of this is to be rolled into my cost of doing business. The advertising campaign is part of the budget. Part of putting the product into the customer's hands at a price he or she wants to pay.
Bee
¹Which means a professional website. I would make it as slick as could be, and reference my professional youTube videos.
²in the US, keystone is considered to be 50% of the retail price. A retailer is expected to mark my product up by a factor of 2. If I sell my product to a retailer at 5USD, keystone suggests he will sell it at 10USD. And I need to make it for less than 5USD to be profitable. This may preclude me from marketing through the LMS or retailers.
-
Era 1 Rolling stock
R40102 R1
R40357 R2 <<<<<
R40436 R1
R40437 R1
R40438 R1
R40439 R1
R40445 R2 <<<<<
R60014 R1
R60164 R3 <<<<<
R60165 R3 <<<<<
R60166 R3 <<<<<
R60275 R1
R60276 R1
Since the vast majority of the Era 1 rolling stock is based on the same chassis, there should be one specification for minimum radius. It should not be R3, in any event. The coal cagon, and possibly Adelaide's Saloon, have a different chassis, but are equivalent in size and likely have the same minimum radius.
Further, items that come in both sets of three and a single carriage, the specification should agree betwixt them.
R40436 is specified to come with a NEM pocket. Yet R40357, with identical Adelaide's Saloon is specified with chains.
R40437 is specified to come with a NEM pocket. Yet the Royal Mail carriage also came in R3956, and has chains.
R30346 Locomotion is specified to come with chains. Yet Carl, Hornby Head of Development, said during the Q&A video that it would "work with Accurascale" chaldrons. While I have made such an adaptor, it would seem that this locomotive should have a NEM pocket. But chains is specified on the webpage.
Hopefully, this makes it into the hands of the Hornby Webmaster for correction.
Bee
-
Hi Alberto
Always a pleasure to see your layout. Do you do shunting? I see a bunch of sidings, but I have not seen them in action.
Very happy to hear Jasmine is doing better. Give her a gentle pat on the head and tell her "Good Girl". Just for me. I would appreciate that my friend.
Bee
-
And to add to Going Spare's comment...
Colors fade and age over time. Getting a perfect match to older color is very tricky. When adding in the complexity of finish (matte, satin, gloss), it can be quite challenging.
A total repaint, or just accepting minor defects may be preferable.
Bee
-
Hello Son of Triangman
You wrote "Making a commercial product is always a challenge"
Perhaps I should add the words, "at a profitable price point". The challenge is to be able to sell it for more than it takes to get it into the client's hands. You can always make something, making it cheaply enough is the hard part.
Perhaps I should add the words "and it is what the customer wants". Making the best chariot for military use isn't going to attract many buyers. A few millenia ago, they would have sold in the thousands. Today? Not so much.
I am confident that you are already well aware of these fine points, and other points as well. I simply thought to add a few comments from the peanut gallery.
Bee
-
A NEW CANDIDATE EMERGES
Point 1.
The Science Museum has a letter from John Backhouse to his sister.
You may, of course, read all the details there. The museum dates the letter as 27 Sept 1825. Note the post mark, 1825, irrefutable.
To summarize, John was a spectator at the opening, aged 14. He wrote to his sister, describing the event, and most interesting for our purposes, drew a sketch of the train to include "Experiment", numbered 22 in his diagram. One may term this a childish sketch, lacking in detail given the size. But please read this post in totality before formulating an opinion.
He also states that the flag in chaldron behind "Experiment" reads
'Periculum privatum' and 'Publicum Bonum'. This presents as a unique data point, a possible correlation.
Point 2
The Science Museum holds non-period art by John Dobbin.
While the image is clearly from 1871, it is claimed by the Friends of the Stockton and Darlington Railway that Dobbin was a spectator at the event, aged 10.
The consist is drawn, again very small.
Point 3
We have a verbal description of "Experiment, from the Durham County Advertiser, dated 1 Oct 1825. You may read the entire transcript here
Extract:
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.
Further:
A flag inscribed – “Periculam Privatum Utilitas Publica,” which may be rendered into English thus Private Risk for Public Utility.
Point 4 Correlation
I have clipped the sketches of Backhouse and Dobbin, made them equal in size. Presented here for your inspection
A few things are immediately apparent
1) They look to be the same!! 5 openings. 6 poles. Box like. In the Dobbins image, the passengers are facing inward, as the Durham County Advertiser describes. Yet, how can this be? The Backhouse letter was a private communication to family. Dobbin could never have seen it. The "Experiment" as drawn by both, show identical features. The correlation? Both were 1st hand spectators
2) There is something written in large bold letters beneath the openings on both images. The Backhouse image suggests it reads "Experiment". Spell the word carefully, and see the letters in Backhouse's sketch, one at a time.
The illustration by Dobbin is not legible.
1) The reason I couldn't read the writing on the flag in the Longridge engraving is because it was in Latin. I was expecting English. Upon further inspection of the Longridge engraving, there is correlation with the S&DR motto.
In the case of Backhouse, he proves himself a 1st hand spectator, by referencing the Latin in the moment, albeit incorrectly.
2) The general shape is consistent with the 1860 Smiles illustration.
Yet in detail, it is not a match. Only 3 openings, not 5 as drawn by 2 firsthand spectators. Walls, not poles. No writing on the side. It would be consistent with the Durham County Advertiser description.
3) The period advertisement for Experiment does NOT mention fares both inside and outside. Just one fare, 1d./mile. If seating was available inside AND outside, there would be a fare differential.
4) The Longridge engraving can only be dated as early as its publication. 1832. It is possible that the artist presents "Experiment" as per the period advertisement illustrations, an anachronism. Just a suggestion, not a fact.
5) Durham County Advertiser describes 16 or 18 passengers, facing each other. Coach seating is facing each other, yet it would be impossible to seat that quantity of persons in any stage coach. We know from the LMR, that similar compartments hold 6 persons, not 16.
CURRENT RANK
1) In primacy of place, the "Experiment" as sketched by 1st hand spectators. They independently provide the same data points. The sketch is consistent with all of the data assembled so far, most importantly with each other, but also with the Durham County Advertiser.
2) Falling to second place, the stage coach illustrated in the Longridge engraving. Consistent with illustrations in advertisement of passenger service. Near period illustration, yet perhaps not 1st hand spectator. Accurate in many other details, such as flags and Locomotion/Active valve gear.
3) Dropping to last, the Smiles illustration. Far from a period illustration, can only be dated as early as 1860. Consistent with the Durham County Advertiser verbal description, but utterly fails to match details provided by independent 1st hand spectators.
-
Thank you 81F, for the information and your reply. I never know when I will learn something, so I am always alert for the experience
Bee
-
Hello Tony
I would be astonished if the tooling was not a proprietary Hornby asset. Gobsmacked. And therefore, inventoried.
Those molds are literally Hornby's crown jewels. The CAD models are the intellectual property, but the tooling is the physical realization of that intellectual property.
I do suppose that the vendor could own the tooling, reserving it exclusively to Hornby, but that would be incredibly short sighted. The slightest hiccup would release the exclusion, permitting the vendor to undercut Hornby, using Hornby molds. They could not possibly consider this viable, could they?
Bee
-
The shipping carton arrived, slightly damaged. My heart sunk. Oh No!! Opening the GFM shipping carton, I realized that the inner contents were cocooned in bubble wrap. Which contained the Hornby brown box. Opened to yet another layer of bubble wrap and thence to the gloss printed Hornby box. Well done GFM! It arrived safely. Whew.
I will skip beyond Rocket. It is the same Rocket of R3809, R3810, R3956 and now R30090. I will likely convert this over to Northumbrian. My motorized tender will also substitute, having tender handrails per Nasmyth, making it a secret double header. Likely a repaint to LMR green too. For a braver day, when I lower the piston angle.
Likewise, the kerfuffle over the named 1st class glass carriages is over. Traveller and Huskisson are both present, as promised by Hornby customer care. If you recall, Hornby shuffled the web page imagery, leading to confusion all around. Resolved.
And now, the star of the show. The Booth Curtain carriage. It has the same chassis of nearly all Era 1 rolling stock. This time, in brown. Same finescale chain couplings.
The curtains are tabbed into the walls and roof, each very much appears to be a separately applied part. There is seating, which is never mentioned, anywhere!
This caused me to examine Huskisson under bright light, discovering there are seats in the glass carriages as well, with seat or bench dividers.
The Booth Curtain Carriage does not have bench dividers. Perfectly understandable, as the historical record is very thin. The Crane image of the Queen Adelaide Curtain Carriage does show 3 abreast, implying 6 inside, a first class feature.
It is very likely that the Booth Curtain Carriage had similar seating.
There are full walls separating each compartment, as well as a leading and trailing wall. The Booth illustration of 1830 shows a leading wall, with the compartment divisions merely a vertical post. The trailing member is also a center post construction, no wall.
The roof detail matches the stamp, not the Booth illustration
A full roof rack, without seating for the brakeman. Hornby retains the steps and foot rest for the brakeman, as this would be logical for roof access. Needless to say, the brakeman seating is illustrated by Booth.
Enough faffing about, Bee, get on with it
I am quite thrilled by this carriage, as it represents the very earliest days of the LMR. Hornby have done a reasonably good job here. Could it be better? Of course, but perfect is the enemy of good. An example are the buffers. They are decidedly anachronistic for the earliest LMR days, but you would have to really know your LMR details to notice.
I am happy. So much so that my pre-order for more of the Booth Curtain Carriages, R40438, will remain standing. Please sir, may I have some more? - Oliver.
Bee
Edit: thank you to the moderator who put the photographs upright. This is wacky. When initially installing the images into the new post box, they appear upright. After being saved, camera images then come out sideways, 90° out of phase. While the LMR images start out upright, and remain so. Positively schizophrenic.
-
Earlier in this thread, I linked https://books.google.com/books?id=0qdVAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover, an 1827 book which preserved an earlier 1825 article about the Opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
While the book preserved the text of the article, I was left wanting. This was merely the text. What did any newspaper look like from nearly 200 years ago, and more specifically, that of the Newcastle Courant of October 1, 1825?
[instructions and Key:
Right click, "view image". Zoom.
Lower Right, full front page.
Top, banner with date.
Lower Left, fully legible text, when zoomed.]
While I was hopeful, there is no further information other than the article preserved in the 1827 book. There are no images of the railway, the locomotives, the participants or the scene. Yet it is the most contemporaneous notice to the Opening, in original presentation. What you would see that day, reading the news, nearly 200 years ago.
The novelty! Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
Bee
-
Hi Roger
My questions are less than a week old. Ntpntpntp can speak for his question.
Managing customer expectations is an important function of any forward facing corporate role.
Whilst I did not look for it, does the question form indicate it could take some time for a response? This is what I mean about managing expectations. Ntp is waiting, clearly unhappy from the emoji. I am waiting too.
Perhaps the future Hornby web page might indicate that there will be a delay in answering, to create a reasonable expectation.
Bee
-
Hello RogerB
I've also placed two questions on the R30346 Locomotion web listing. Neither of which has appeared or been answered.
Hornby specifically asks for an email address, which must be subsequently confirmed, for each question. So they could reply directly without it appearing on the page.
As the Moderators have direct access to Hornby staff, may I request that you inquire about Hornby practice vis web page questions.
I recognize that Hornby are not poised over the web pages, just idling away, waiting for a question. Perhaps we are expecting a quick response too quickly.
Still, if a person who was not so understanding was to ask a question, what would their evaluation of this be?
Bee
-
Hello Tom
Well sir, now you have gone and done it. You have successfully changed my mind. This is in response to your post including an image of a Planet class locomotive without buffer.
Nicholas Wood portrays a Planet-class locomotive without a front buffer. In appears in the 1834 French translation of Practical Treatise..., or in this case Traité Pratique... Wood being absolutely authoritative, I yield the point. Thank you.
In close examination, your image appears reproduced¹ from the same tome, as the chimney, with its elegant scalloped indentations, is fairly unique. From a manufacturing standpoint, such scallops could be machined today, but in the early 1830s, would be cast. Similar scallops are observed on the steam dome in the same image.
Take a moment to observe the oscillating handles on the footplate and the location of the axle, in your presented image. Then compare that correct location to what Austen provides us. I think you will observe there is a dilemma for Austen. In fairness to Austen, it took me a dog's age to work out the mechanism, even with Armengaud's mechanical drawings. Austen had to do it on the fly, without mechanical drawings.
I think this is the fascination of these old images. There is always a new detail to discover and interpret.
Bee
¹The drawing you present is from The Engineer, making it a non period drawing. I am always leary of non-period images, just as I am of non-period texts, like Thomas and Dawson. They are interpretative of the record, the artist's or author's view of the record, not the record. In the instant case, the source is Wood of 1834. Wood is the record, The Engineer is an interpretation and a smudged copy, at that.
-
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858045867771&seq=223
New England Farmer, dated January 24, 1826. "In consequence of the opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, it is said that the price of coals of the former is reduced from 18 to 12 shillings per ton. Goods are transported at one halfpenny per ton per mile. A COACH has been established on the rail road which carries passengers at one penny a mile"
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951p01084278u&seq=586
The Monthly Magazine November 1826. "There are six or seven COACHES now running on the Stockton and Darlington Railway. They carry on average 150 passengers a day. The charge is 1d. per mile outside, 1½d inside"
While it is possible that the Smiles illustrated carriage had inside passengers, I see no accomodation for outside passengers. Again, the reference here to a coach.
As a reminder, there was an advertisement for a railway coach. Here is the view of Union, which offered fares of 1d. per mile outside, 1½d inside.
Perhaps you still wish to have Locomotion No.1 pull the 1860s Smiles illustration, which has popularly entered the public consciousness via the centenary celebrations and the replica at Beamish. I totally understand that. It simply is not supported in the record, an invention of Smiles.
Hornby should offer that version, simply to match the myth.
Yet, Longridge's illustration matches all the period advertisements and descriptions. It is a "coach". Not a box on wheels. Hornby must produce this carriage, to be pulled in consist, as Longridge shows.
Bee
How to sit vessel in realistic water but can still be removed to view how to?
in General Discussion
Posted
Wapples
You need a way to precisely form the "water" to match the hull. Otherwise, you will end up with unsightly gaps.
So the method is to mold the void in the "water" to match the hull. Releasing the mold is the tricky part, as you correctly ascertain.
In other projects, I've considered molding for small batch manufacturing. Silicon molds allow you to peel away the mold.
Here is how I would approach the problem, noting that this is not from experience.
1) cast the hull in silicon. Your boat sits in a pool of silicon, forming the negative of the hull.
2) peel the negative mold.
3) cast a dummy hull, using the negative mold.
4) peel the negative mold, providing a positive mold of the hull.
5) Firmly position the positive mold on the layout. You will have braces, boards, & etc, holding it exactly on position.
6) pour the "water" up to the waterline of your positive mold, which should also be where you want the water to come up to on your layout¹
7) peel the positive mold from the "water".
This should result in a fairly good match of model hull to water.
Bee
¹That is going to be a significant amount of epoxy resin. Be very sure that you have enough on hand before you start AND that you can properly mix it and pour it before it goes off.