What About The 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. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/documents/aa110075124/letter-from-john-backhouse-to-his-sister-describing-the-opening-train-on-the-stockton-darlington-railway 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. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co227670/opening-of-the-stockton-darlington-railway-ad-1825-from-a-sketch-by-the-artist-at-the-time-drawing 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 https://www.sdr1825.org.uk/archives/durham-county-advertiser-1-october-1825-transcribed-by-peter-bainbridge/ 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

Hi LT&SR_NSE It is a curiosity of course. Why spend money for a carriage used at best 4 months of the year? It was the very earliest of days of the LMR and experimentation was the order of the day. There was no text, no guidebook. It was all ad hoc. Compare these curtain carriages, with full end plates, a roof and side curtains, to the contemporary LMR outside passengers in 2nd class. No end plates. No roof. No curtains. All year round. Brrrr. Bee

The Science Museum will offer us the date they think the Austen image was created. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co66065 1831 to 1835 Tom, You make an excellent point. The drawing of Rocket in Mechanic Magazine, dated October 24th 1829, does not have a front buffer. I agree, it had to be developed at some time after that. I think we have a terminal date for that. 1830. Northumbrian, illustrated in Booth's book of 1830, has a front buffer. It is realistic to expect Planet, delivered AFTER Northumbrian by the same firm, to have a front buffer. Please read my post on the previous page, with additional issues vis Planet's front buffer. Bee

Hello Tom As I wait for your images to be approved, I will offer this reference for your kind consideration. In James Walker's text, we have this image, of a Planet class locomotive going under the Rainhill Bridge. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015076002636&seq=8 Drawn and Engraved by Issac Shaw, known good observer. Shaw draws a feature on the front buffer which may appear odd at first. There are two buffer beams, arranged vertically. If you now go and examine Armengaud, you will find he replicates this peculiar feature. While I agree that his drawings post date the period by a few years, Armengaud did not work in a vaccuum. I think it reasonable to expect a feature to be present when we have good evidence for its existence. Shaw is nearly irrefutable. Bee Edit: Walker published in 1832. I do suppose it post dates the relevant Austen image.

The Examiner published notice of the opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. Issue No. 924 Monday, October 17th 1825. You will find the notice here. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044089261531&seq=675 While the obvious plagarism of the consist is present, referencing the "elegant covered coach", we do have pertinent details about the passenger carriage, underscored. "The coach in which the proprietors travelled is to ply the road from Stockton to Darlington". We have seen advertisements of this service in an earlier post in this thread. "From the success", observed The Scotsman, "of this experiment at Darlington, and from what we have learned otherwise, we have no doubt that when the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway is formed, STAGE-COACHES moved by loco-motive engines will commence plying at the very first..." Stage-coaches. The very name of a particular vehicle in England the 1820s. Bee

I have an update to this topic. I have been reliant upon Longridge, of Bedlington Iron Works and his publication of 1832. Yet in this publication of 1827, we find an article about Opening Day, from the Newcastle Courant, dated October 1st, 1825. https://books.google.com/books?id=0qdVAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover It appears that Longridge plagiarized this same newspaper article, with the exact same consist, with the "elegant covered coach" as previously discussed in this thread. As the S&DR opened on 27 Sept 1825, and the article is dated 1 October 1825, I do not think it possible to find a more contemporary account! Yet the possibility does exist 😉 I would suggest that a contemporary newspaper reporter would know the names of basic things. Dial "English coach 1820s" into Google and observe the images returned. They look like a stagecoach. Lending support to the Longridge illustration, degrading support to the Smiles illustration of 1860ish. Bee

Dawson presents the image in Locomotives of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway which is dated clearly 1832. Yet, the Royal Mail carriage appears to have differences as compared to the image I have. That is, the Royal Mail carriage is portrayed as Ackermann. Perhaps, just maybe, Austen corrected the image, and as a function of the correctIon, changed the date. Bee

I know this is blurry. "Drawn by Henry Austen March 1834" Bee

Hello Tom Would you check your print that the Royal Mail carriage image came from? My copy of that, albeit blurry in the lower left corner, seems to indicate 1834. I think is says "Henry Austen March 1834". The resolution on your image appears to be much better than mine. Thank you. I've always been intrigued by the "Oxen Wagon" No. 4 on the Goods consist by Austen. It seems to show full divisions across the wagon, but nothing on the sides. The oxen appear tethered, maybe by nose, possibly by halter. What is to prevent a terrified, powerful draft animal, such as oxen, from leaping to their demise? A ring in his nose? Bee Edit: NRM asset number 01A87DB3, who claim 1832 for a date. There is no possibility that the date ends in a 2 on the image.

Information is remarkably thin on Crane. William Crane, of Chester, was active between ~1829 to ~1840. Died 1843, giving a terminal date to any W. Crane image. He has other non railway works which demonstrate his artistic capability. As to Phoenix, Rocket Class, LMR6. Participated in Opening Day ceremony, directed by R. Stephenson. Engineman John Wakefield. Two brakemen listed, James Wood and Hugh Greenshields. Two is consistent with practice as I understand it. A brakeman on the carriage immediately behind the tender, who passes commands from the engineman to the brakeman on the last carriage. Commands like: release brake, set brake, etc. According to RGH Thomas, the Queen Adelaide curtain carriage (not to be confused with Saloon No.2) was converted from curtain to all glass in 1832. Dawson also confirms. I would suggest the image is circa 1835, not later. Phoenix, with a type 1 tender (barrel) and 0-2-2 configuration would have been quite outdated by then, similar to the curtain carriage, outdated. Bee

Hello M*ck [the Hornby word filter will not permit me to use your name. My apologies for that] Solving the riddle of the type of material would be fantastic. We know it must be durable to withstand the drubbing it would get, flapping furiously due to the motion of the train. It needs to be adjustable, yet somehow not flap in passenger faces. The curtain also appears in center glass, end curtain carriages, known first class. Since it is first class, we must assume some degree of class consciousness. Mean forms, like sailcloth, as it would be beneath the hoity-toity first class passengers. Weather resistance would be limited to rain, as I do not think these carriages were used in cool or cold weather. A sodden curtain however, would be very unappealing, so the ability to shed water, or dry quickly would be valued. The fabric type is a conundrum! It is my belief that these carriages faded away, as they offered little utility to the LMR except during the warm summer months. Stored the remainder of the year. The center glass, end curtain carriages were swiftly converted over. There is no reason to believe these escaped that order. Bee

I have a sweet pug, who we refer to as "The Old Lady". I understand completely. Best wishes to Jasmine, I hope she pulls through. Bee

Thank you Tom. I included the print in this discussion to lend credulity to the concept that the Booth curtain carriage is a first class carriage, not second as Hornby have stated. Now an interesting point you raise is of the Royal Mail Carriage in the consist. Royal Mail, or 4 Inside fares were only listed for First Class trains by Walker. You could purchase a ticket for a glass carriage on a second class train, but not 4 inside / Royal Mail. First Class Train fares = 6 inside or 4 inside. Essentially Express. Second Class Train fares = Glass Carriages (6 inside) or Open Carriages. The Local Train. The inclusion of Royal Mail denotes the consist as a First Class Train. And what do I see there? The Booth Carriage! This was a detail I had not previously known, for which I thank you. Now let me turn to the last carriage in consist, furthest from the locomotive. As you show, it is a center glass, end curtain carriage. Much like the one illustrated by Crane It would have to be fairly warm before sitting outside would be attractive to a first class passenger. Nothing like a stiff breeze to create windchill. Thus, the carriage would be used primarily in the summer. We know the last carriage to be a Glass Carriage, albeit with curtain compartments. This is yet another reason why I categorize the Booth Carriage as a first class carriage. It essentially extends the concept of the summer compartment to the center compartment. Instead of just the ends, it is all three. Bee I have a very annoying habit of categorizing images in differing ways. Sometimes by publisher, sometimes by artist. For example, I refer to the Olive Mount print discussed as a Walker print, even though it is by Shaw, a known good observer. I know the 3 Ackermann long prints, dated on the prints 1831, 1833 and 1834, are by Shaw. My apologies for this odd categorization. It is an artifact of my research and does not necessarily conform to methods by others.

Tom, Its actually more than that. The axle for the oscillating levers on the footplate is drawn in completely the wrong place by Austen. He has it going through the firebox, when in fact that axle must be behind the firebox. These types of discrepancies have caused me to discount Austen. Bee