What About The Bee

Nice job! Bee

Hi @LTSR_NSE The early canopies were, I believe, a heavy duty material, like the tarpaulins. This obviously did not stand up to the elements or the thrashing of wind caused by travel. The one modeled certainly appears to be tarp or canvas. Later, they went with hard a hard roof. Here is one in Wood, albeit not necessarily for the LMR. As far as the canopy on the model, I am going to try 1.14 mm in thickness. The floors on the cattle waggons were ~1.6mm and they seemed quite robust in the same material. The thing is, I do not know if that is too thin. Until I get a better understanding of Shapeways, much of this is simply an experiment. One I am enjoying, to be frank. Bee

By August, 1831, the LMR had received several complaints of burnt clothing. It seems embers were being lofted into the air from the locomotive chimney. Those embers then landed on the passengers in the open second class carriages, the carriages of the type discussed so far in this thread. The LMR ordered canopies to be fitted to second class carriages. We have several depictions by Ackermann and others, showing these canopies. My current accessory kit for R40102 includes seats and now, a canopy. The first thing to get correct is the side elevation of the canopy, relative to the G. Stephenson drawing and the Ackermann aquatint All three overlayed onto one showing the canopy, seats and Hornby shell on top of the Stephenson drawing and the Ackermann aquatint. The posts are referenced down to the interior of the Hornby Shell. The posts are on hand brass rod, 0.57 mm in radius. In isometric view, I think it looks quite the part. Colors right now are arbitrary, to help in the CAD development. Bee

@RDSA double cross over on a curve would be interesting geometry. In fairness to @JJ1707819721, I think he is right. I believe the loops are independent. Bee

For the helicopter lift gang 🙂 WHOOPS! Shackle failure? We also had one dropped, albeit not the one in the video. My buddy was sent out to make the damage report. In short, he said it was not going to buff right out. Bee

Apropos to the previous post, John Sullivan, Civil Engineer, writes in December 1830 The author seems to indicate the "chief engineer" [G. Stephenson] was forced to admit the advantage of the Winans friction wheels, yet the previous investment in waggons and Winans price was too high a burden. That is, financial reasons. Bee

Hot Box Explanation Bee

In the US, it is typically the bearing type. Even with modern stock, the railroads have "hot box" detectors. This sensor sits by the rail and detects each axle as it goes by. It measures the temperature on each. It then reports, over radio audible to the engineman, the number of axles and if any are over temperature. The Winans enclosed friction wheels were oil bath and reported to keep the temperature lower. The railways were aware of the issue, even in the 1820s and 30s. The temperature rise is due to insufficient lubrication. As the locomotive continues to drag the consist, the surfaces can heat to melting, causing instant derailment. It simply isn't worth the disruption in traffic to permit antiquated stock on the mainline. Bee

Hello ThreeLink It would be anachronistic to judge the Winans Friction Wheel waggons by modern standards. Fortunately, we have Earle, A Treatise on Railroads, 1830, by which we may evaluate the waggons. The first thing to note is that Earle is 100% aware of the Winans Friction Wheel waggons, mentioning him by name. It is somewhat strange that no one can ever seem to spell his name correctly! Now go back to the first post, and find Vignoles evaluation with the 68% enhancement. Notice that the Winans waggons are 2 TONS less than the Stephenson improved waggons, in aggregate. Meaning the ratio is actually 16 :: (27+2) or 81% more efficient, not 68%. Earle also specifies cheapness. Perhaps Winans wanted too much from the LMR to license the patent. The last point Earle raises is curves. Go back and examine the patent drawing for the unenclosed Winans friction wheel. Notice the odd shape of the tread of the wheel? This was explicitly stated as to facilitate curves in the Winans patent. It does meet the criteria, but simply isn't the modern shape, inverted from Winans. The Winans patent did enjoy great success in the US railroad market. Why not in Britain? Hard to say. Bee

Welcome aboard @Official HornbyThank you for bravely sharing your first post. We will not judge you for your "newbie" badge. Beginners are welcome here! As to your question of a name: I note the bucolic nature of the scene. Several farm animals and farm buildings. Perhaps Pastoral Railway Bee

@LTSR_NSEHi! Wood notes that the upright rods were made of iron. Brass rod, suitably blackened, is stiff enough to hold up a plastic canopy. I note that brass rod is commercially available at 0.3 mm diameter, which will provide that spider web like look. That's equivalent to 0.9 inches in OO. It does not appear to be an overwhelming challenge, at all. In so far as mechanical drawings like the Stephenson Drawing, there are a few. Mostly, however, there are simply artist drawings, with some artists more adept than others. I personally think this adds to the allure and mystery. We will likely never know any of these waggons or carriages in a perfect sense. Moreover, they were evolving rapidly, meaning anything we know is just a moment in time. I've still a bunch of very early carriages that were revealed in the newspaper search. Stay tuned! I must unfortunately burst the bubble that the Booth 1st Curtain Carriages may have been used in 1844. All the curtain carriages seem totally eradicated by 1834. Perhaps the chassis was re-used. But the spring loaded buffers and draw pins of those chassis also were revised and re-invented in the later 1830s, making it very unlikely that any parts of the Booth 1st Curtain Carriages survived to 1844. It is certainly possible that these 2nd/3rd blue carriages survived. They appear on the Manchester and Leeds Railway drawings (1845) as well as London and Birmingham Railway drawings. As a type, the British public well accepted them. It is my belief that the new, enclosed 2nd carriages that came about with Parliamentary trains were simply constructed from the ground up new. There would be little incentive to destroy a functional 2nd blue carriage, when it could be simply downgraded to 3rd without effort. Your mileage may vary, of course! Bee

LT&SR_NSE, in another thread, you asked: Having fairly conclusively demonstrated that [the Booth] curtained carriage is a first class design… I wonder if you’d be interested in researching what the later 2nd Class carriages (built to enable originals to become 3rd Class) actually looked like? ÷÷÷÷ I will begin with a statement. Hornby had a choice when deciding what to design for these carriages. They had a choice between what was actually on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and what is at the museum. Hornby did know what was on the railway https://uk.hornby.com/community/blog-and-news/engine-shed/expanding-stephensons-rocket-train-pack-announcing-launch-lmr-third-class-carriage You will note the "George Stephenson Drawing" in the Hornby article, as well as parts of Ackermann aquatints. Hornby did measure what was at the museum, the images of that are in the Hornby article. The museum carriages were made for the centenary celebration of the LMR. So what follows will not be a disection of Hornby's commercial choice to reproduce the museum carriages. Moreover, I am happy with Hornby's carriages, full stop. The "George Stephenson Drawing" The drawing appears in William Sloane Kennedy, Wonders and Curiosities of the Railway, 1884. In the text, Kennedy credits two individuals. J. B.Winslow, of Boston and E.H. Talbott. We will summarily dispense with Talbott, he was merely the publisher of The Railway Age periodical, who established the copyright. Yet J.B. Winslow is far more interesting. He was an agent of the Boston and Lowell Railway (in the US), chartered in 1830. Winslow claimed that the drawings were presented to him by George Stephenson in 1835. Winslow stated that they (probably) represented the LMR 2nd class carriage of 1832. The provenance of the drawing is therefore very good. It is important to note that Railway Age stated that the drawing shown was redrawn from the original. The signature may or may not have been on the original. Presented here is the highest resolution image, for inspection. You will note that on the right hand side, the image is a cut away, revealing the seats and interior configuration. Comparative Analysis There are 3 main portrayals. The Ackermann aquatints, the Stephenson Drawing and the Hornby Museum Carriage. Given the probable date of 1832 for the Stephenson drawing, I selected the Ackermann prints of 1831 for analysis. With three carriages, we have three comparisons. Ackermann to Stephenson Drawing. Ackermann to Hornby Museum Carriage. Stephenson Drawing to Hornby Museum Carriage. In each comparison, the topmost drawing is made transparent. The lengths are set equal and aligned. Key Observations 1) The stirrups to mount the carriages are loops, not a step on a rod. This is rational. The museum step on a rod is nearly as fragile as the Hornby model representation of it. It would not, in actual use, be a robust solution. There should be a stirrup, not a step on a rod. 2) The Hornby Museum carriage wheel base is too long. Carriages on the LMR had to fit on those tiny turntables. The track length on the turntables was 2 meters. I scale the wheel base on the Stephenson Drawing to be 70½" (1.8 meters). When the flanges are included, we can see it fits, with little to spare. This comment applies to all Hornby LMR waggons and carriages, with the exception of the 'common railway waggon' R60164. 3) The curvature at the top of each compartment is continuous, not two curves and a flat, portrayed by the Museum Carriages. Note that the Ackermann prints match that curve with exceptional precision. That means the top of the door is curved, not flat. 4) Seating. Passengers did NOT ride standing up on the LMR. Every passenger had a seat. The Stephenson Drawing shows seats. The Ackermann drawings do show the occasional standing passenger, yet the passengers next to them are seated. Some passengers stood by choice, therefore, in front of a seat. 5) The Museum Carriage is too tall comparatively. Once the museum carriages were designed as stand up carriages, the walls had to be tall enough to prevent passengers from falling out. They are ~ 1 foot too tall. How can I make the Hornby Museum Carriages be more like the Stephenson Drawing? The first and most obvious thing to change is seating. Add it. Seating should be anatomically correct for OO passengers. The passengers on the interior dividing walls were seated on box cabinets, the inside of the box used for luggage, with doors on the outside. If you examine the detailed Stephenson Drawing, you will see the hinges, handles and door outlines. The passengers seated at the front and back are on cantilevered seats. Sketching them up, we have Placing them into a quick sketch of the Hornby shell, we have This compares to the Stephenson Drawing The length and top corners are matched. The seat depth from the top corners are matched. To prevent the OO passengers feet from dangling like an infant in a high chair, a false floor is installed under the seats. This will be very difficult to detect from normal viewing distances unless you measure the heights or are very observant. One subtle difference imposed by the Hornby Museum Carriage model is the door width. The Ackermann Aquatints and the Stephenson Drawing show a narrower door. My seats are slightly too shallow, such that the front edge of the seats do not conflict with the Hornby theoretical door opening, but not by much! What about the wheelbase and the stirrups? The stirrups could be made from metal. They might be tricky to attach to the Hornby chassis. Fundamentally, Hornby could refine the model, abandoning the museum representation and moving towards the Stephenson drawing. That would be a commercial choice for Hornby. One I cannot and will not make for Hornby. If it were me, I would focus on fleet additions, rather than correcting deficiencies. Hornby could release seating units, afterall, they weren't terribly hard to CAD. I have not printed mine yet, but certainly, I intend to. I've realized that Shapeways installs fixed overhead costs on each order. Thus, ganging multiple designs on one order amortizes my expense. The seats will be ganged with the cattle waggon & pig waggon prints. I am considering the sheep waggon doors as well. Bee