What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,926 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
Hi 96RAF
You may have heard me use the expression "known good observer" when I speak of old images.
Not every artist gets that description. Not only is Parker not a good observer, it is entirely likely that he didn't actually see anything first hand. He just plagiarized an image and did a poor job of it at that. I did not bother to include the books that plagiarized from Parker, but they do exist. I take whatever Parker says with a grain of salt.
So when you hear me reference someone as a known good observer, it is because the artist clearly observed the images first hand, and drew what he saw. A primary example is Issac Shaw. Another is Clayton, referenced above.
Clayton is the only artist to show the 4th class carriages. There is one more, not included above. I have shown it before, it is in the Olive Mount Cutting, with the top hat guards along the way. The 4th class carriage appears to be little more than flat cars, low walls and bench seating. From the modern perspective, dangerous beyond belief. There is a wealth of carriages completely untapped by Hornby.
Bee
-
Hi JJ
This month, I am showing pictures of a bell crank locomotive. One was on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
I looked at a lot of books and found some neat pictures.
I will show some very strange early railway pictures, every month.
I am happy you liked the pictures JJ.
Bee
-
Nay Nay Roger!
This is a tribute to book titles of the early 1800s. Ridiculously long is the name of the game!!
Bee
-
Will be 68 in just days.
Both parents still alive. I may just have enough time to get my LMR Layout together in glorious OO
Bee
-
The other day, Three Link asked about Experiment, LMR32. Experiment was a bell crank locomotive.
PISTON WEAR CONCERNS
A major concern of early locomotive engineers was the wear of the cylinder and piston. It was reasoned that gravity would always pull the same side of the piston down onto the same inside of the cylinder. As all the force was always concentrated on the same tiny surface, it was expected that this would lead to premature wear and failure.*
You will see the results of this concern in period stationary steam engines as well as locomotives. Rocket's pistons were mounted at an odd angle too. We know today that this is an unfounded concern, but it is a logical outcome of period engineering. It makes logical, if not actual sense.
BELL CRANK LOCOMOTIVES
Sharp, Roberts & co. were a very early concern manufacturing locomotives. They produced Experiment LMR32 in 1833 for the LMR. No images of Experiment exist, but fortunately Experiment's sister locomotive Hibernia was produced for the Dublin and Kingstown Railway. This was drawn by Clayton in 1834, "Thirteen Views of the Dublin Kingstown Railway". Clayton also produced early unique drawings of the LMR, we can be assured of his pedigree.
THIRTEEN VIEWS
Hibernia had vertical pistons, which totally alleviated the horizontal piston wear problem. Force was transmitted through a bell crank. It is assumed that Experiment and Hibernia closely resembled each other.
In this view, Clayton shows us the various classes of travel, pulled by Hibernia. I take special note of the Fourth Class carriage, and its similarity another enigmatic LMR view by Clayton as well.
1834/5
This more detailed view of Hibernia appears, but I can only find the image in isolation, not a book
This image appears in Janvier, 1838
This in Parker 1838 and several other plagiaristic copies.
It is important to note that the Sharp & Roberts valve gear was unique and somewhat troublesome, leading the LMR to order a retrofit of Experiment long before Janvier, Parker and all the rest gleefully committed plagiarism.
DUNDEE AND NEWTYLE
Another bell crank locomotive of 1833 provides us with an absolute gem
The locomotive was on the Dundee and Newtyle railway, in Scotland. As technology marched on, the locomotive was reduced to stationary pumping duty, where it was found in the 1850s by what can only be termed a wealthy enthusiast. He gathered back all the parts and restored the locomotive. It was photographed in the 1880s.
Details of the valve gear can be discerned in the image. A spectacular bit of 1830s technology, complete with a photograph instead of a drawing.
Bee
-
Thread Title
RAILWAY ODDITIES or My slog through 8999 books online, using railway search criteria, contemporaneously published during the life of the LMR, wherein I discovered that early authors often had ridiculously long titles and that plagiarism was quite common.
A big part of my railway modeling experience is the period books and illustrations. There is nothing like the first hand description of an early traveler or an industry insider. An illustration may be simply landscape, or offer mechanical details that crack a problem wide open, an example being the size of a turntable.
All manner of records and books celebrate the LMR, but the LMR was consolidated by 1845, giving me a firm end date in my quest. 2nd hand summaries and compendium books are fine, but all of those depend on the original record themselves.
Over the past 6 months, I have engaged on a quest to gather up period images and note which books to investigate further. I asked the Hathitrust resource to provide me with the "card catalog record" of every online book, published before 1845, that included the word "railway" and/or "railroad".
8999 records were returned.
As the title of this forum post indicates, authors in that period had ridiculously long titles, at times filling an entire page with text. My forum title is a tribute to those authors!
The other thing I learned was that early authors thought nothing of plagiarism, out right copies of images and text, without a lick of attribution. An example is the data regarding rolled fishplate rail, patented by Birkenshaw. Of the 134 texts that reference fishplate rail, method of manufacture, Birkenshaw, Bedlington and/or Lingridge; the supposed method of manufacture was repeated using identical sentences in each and every text examined. It matched the text originally provided by Longridge, Owner of the Bedlington Iron Works, where Birkenshaw worked. 134 times, and not one produced any new meaningful data. Plagarism without any redeeming value. Longridge kept the method of manufacture a trade secret.
While some of the 8999 records are duplicates, care must be taken to view each edition of the same book, as artwork can change betwixt revisions. Some texts had included the search word, but was merely in passing.
I've completed the first pass. 8999 books. Some very strange images have appeared. Going forward, I will attempt to share a Railway Oddity on the first of each month.
Enjoy!
Bee
The first installment awaits moderator image approval. Check back later!
-
Hi Arjun
You asked
"Would it be cheaper to buy a better model of the train, or pay someone to rework" my current train.
Arjun, without a specific quote from an individual, giving a specific level of accuracy and finish, you really can never know. You may find a perfectionist who works for the joy of doing it. You may find a poor excuse for a modeler who just takes your money
BUT
In general, I cannot think of a situation where you will get an average person to do the work necessary, without charging you more than the price of a new locomotive, unless that person is you.
Bee
-
Thank you Rana (Col?)
I did find the item and had a very close look at the imagery.
While it has the look and feel of the carriage, details show it to be a fairly coarse model. The print is targeted for FDM. Four sides are printed independently and whacked onto an un-detailed chassis, which mirrors the LMS wheelbase.
I would essentially have to rework the entire assembly. I do appreciate the effort you put into this and thank you for that
Bee
-
When created, these carriages were considered 2nd class, not 3rd. They only became 3rd class in the 1840's, when the LMR finally created enclosed 2nd class. The LMR demoted these, a function of Parliament regulation and also competing railways, who did not offer open travel.
Image Analysis of Stephenson's Open Carriage.
The image presented in this analysis may be ironically be found here: Hornby on Stephenson's Open Carriage
Human anatomy has not changed since the 1830s. Some may suggest we are taller or wider, but the analysis presented here is based on the length of a seat. If you search the internet for seat dimensions, you will find that the bench part of a seat is roughly 17".
If you take 17" as a ruler, and mark pixels, you may determine inches per pixel. From that, we can measure pixels and determine other lengths in inches!
The annotated image shows the seat at 17". Therefore the wheels are 3'2" and the wheelbase 70.5". Please do take these dimensions with a grain of salt.
Recall, however, Armengaud's drawing of a turntable (above), you will see 2 meters, or 78.74". The Stephenson open carriage annotated here does fit on that turntable, but with only inches to spare. As you would expect!
The Model
So what of the model? I measure the wheelbase to be 34mm or 1.34". Likely this matches the scaled LMS reproductions.
Yet 70.5" in OO should be 0.92" (~15/16"). That is a fairly large delta at this scale.
I had a very, very close look at the model, to see the method of axle support. The entire side frame includes the spring, horn guides and horn block, for both axles, molded as one piece. Whilst you could saw it off, re-attaching it while simultaneously keeping the axles parallel to each other and to the floor of the carriage will prove incredibly challenging.
This and other historically accurate carriages are on my list. Some mechanical drawings do exist. Printing the chassis, whilst keeping the carriage body will be my approach.
Bee
-
Hello LT&SR_NSE
Perhaps my word "missed" was a bit harsh.
In all my research and reading, I do try to give the most credence to contemporary resources and first person testimony.
Interpretations at a later date by anyone always suffers from the imperfect knowledge of the record. I suffer from this today, as did the LMS then. This can lead to erroneous conclusions, especially by me.
I was always bothered by the 1830s depicted wheelbase. It does seem unstable. Yet the axles are right at the cabin separators. The only load that is truly cantilevered are the three passengers all the way on the front bench in the first cabin OR in the last bench in the third cabin. The remaining 4 benches are so close to the axles or in between the axles so as to be inconsequential for analysis.
WARNING, an arithmetic exercise follows. Period estimates suggested that 12 passengers weighted 1 ton, or 167lbs each. Thus 3 passengers weigh 500 lbs. Pambour, a period author, notes that a fully loaded first class carriage weighed 3.65 tons and second class 2.23 tons, so 7300 lbs and 4460 lbs respectively. Assume 18 passengers, and the unloaded carriages are 4300 lbs and 1460 lbs respectively. Thus 500 pounds will upset the balance, but not result in a carriage tipping over. Perhaps 3 very chubby passengers; with no other passengers in the carriage; seated in the first row; bouncing up and down simultaneously could be an issue. That goes right out the window once we add other passengers in other compartments. Its not an issue in my estimation.
The LMS moved the axles out to the front edge of the seats. Roughly 4 feet total or 2 feet for each axle. (See image). While we could argue that this is technically more stable, and it is, it is not a significant change in my view.
The engineers at the LMS were asked to make a reproduction, based on....cartoons? Did they have online access to obscure tomes and artwork. No, they did not. I think they did a great job and in general, the appearance is similar. No doubt, they thought the approach they took was safer, more conservative and effective. Hats off to those lads. The carriages do look the part.
When I was first confronted by the wheelbase, I thought to myself, that cannot be. I have pages and pages of calculations, based on the artwork by known good observers. I could not achieve a solid result, just some inconclusive guesses. I was bothered enough to find mechanical drawings of turntables and to compare that to the wheelbase. Something that may not have troubled the engineer tasked with the wheelbase issue at the LMS. I've been at this for years and years. I do not think the lad at the LMS had the same luxury of time.
The result of that comparison provided me with a very good answer, one I think we can rely upon. The 1830s turntables were tiny. The LMR had a large quantity of them installed. The carriages were made to match.
Ordinarily, I would not bother the forum with such trivia. But the recent interest by 81F in the blue boxes encouraged me to share a bit more than previously.
Lest there is any confusion, I am thrilled with the Hornby representation of Era 1, LMR kit. Simply over the moon with it.
If I had not raised the issue as a matter of interest, it would hardly be noticed by the vast body of enthusiasts. I like to share these details as a way to bring out the richness of the era, certainly not to denigrate anyone.
My apologies for the choice of the word. Mea culpa.
Bee
-
The Hornby LMR carriages used the carriages in the museum as the prototype. I think that a fine choice, as the enthusiast can say they match the "real thing". Of course, the real thing matched 1930s LMS engineering, not 1830s LMR!
Placing the 1830s imagery side by side with 1930s/Hornby imagery reveals a startling difference. I wonder if you can spot it
Glass Carriages
Blue Boxes
There are plenty of tiny differences, but those are not my focus The one that always catches my eye is the difference in wheelbase. The axles are so much closer together in the 1830s.
The solution is not that the 1830s imagery is fantasy. The Ackermann prints are excellent. They depicted what the artist observed.
The answer is found in LMR turntables. Those turntables were sprinkled all over the LMR. At the Liverpool Road Station in Manchester, the track plan¹ shows 55 (fifty five) turntables at that station!! Just that station.
Armengaud presents us with a detailed mechanical drawing on one such turntable.
The plan view is most illustrative
There is a scale directly by that plan view, and I have added yellow lines to show 2 meters leading into the turntable. From this, we can observe that the tracks on the turntable were 2 meters long +/-.
In that same drawing package, Armengaud provided us with a mechanical drawing of a planet-class locomotive. Armengaud carefully denotes the wheelbase of that locomotive. 1.5 meters.
Essentially, when the chords of the flanges of a planet class wheel are included, that locomotive fits on the turntable with just inches to spare.
Even though the carriages did not need to be turned round to 'face in the right direction', the requirement to switch tracks was ever present. The wheelbase on the carriages was simply as large as it could be, and still fit on a turntable.
Yes, the wheelbase really was that small, something the 1930s LMS engineers missed.
Bee
¹Fitzgerald, 1980, "Liverpool Road Station, Manchester. An historical and architectural survey"
-
Hi Steve (aka 81F)
The Titfield Thunderbolt has me tied in knots. I think the smokestack artwork quite fetching. I am sorely tempted to get the item and sell on the box and carriages, keeping the Thunderbolt for myself.
The problem? Just like Lion, that haystack copper dome over the firebox is a buzz kill for me.
I don't know how I will stop myself from purchasing once the shifters reduce the price. But if I miss out, I can console myself that Thunderbolt was just a fantasy livery.
Good job on the coupling install. Very workmanlike and tidy.
Bee
-
Hi Andy
Many of the older style Rockets had the axles lubricated with oil.
Oil is a insulator. Remove each side of each axle in turn and clean the axle and the chassis bush it rides in with alcohol.
Lubricate axle/chassis bush liberally with graphite when dry. Graphite is a conductor.
Bee
Edit to add: A small flat bladed screwdriver will slide up in between the chassis and wheel. Bring the tip of the screwdriver right up to the axle. Twist the screwdriver as if you are tightening/loosening a screw. The wheel and stub axle should slide right out of the friction fit plastic axle in the center. This works for front wheels (take the cross slide and connecting rod off first) and the back wheels. If you only do one of the two wheels on an axle at a time, the friction fit plastic axle in the center is always in position, cannot get lost!
The connecting rod screw is super tiny, easy to lose. Please don't ask me how I know. I eventually gave up and bought another one. Don't be me!!
Regarding graphite. Many stores sell this as a lock lubricant. If they make keys, they sell graphite.
-
Hello 81F
You are quite welcome. It was my pleasure to post the image. No trouble at all.
Your next dilemma is seating. LMS engineers in the 1930s did not install seating in the 3rd class blue carriages.
Yet Stephenson's approved drawing of this carriage shows bench seating. One bench facing forward, the other backward. Two benches per compartment.
The Ackermann long prints show this carriage as well. Ackermann prints were contemporary to the LMR, depicting things as they were. People could directly compare the images to the objects. Those images show some of the passengers clearly seated, 3 abreast. Consistent with Stephenson.
North Star, LMR8 pulling three of these. 1st generation tender, barrel type. There were 6 carriages in this consist but the other 3 were of a different type of carriage.
This is the precise dilemma Hornby already faced. Do you match the 1930s LMS reproductions (no seating) or the contemporary 1830s images (seating)? Hornby chose to match the reproduction carriages.
Bee
-
Hello Nicholas
Perhaps it is just me, but I am having a bit of trouble understanding your question.
When you say "names, reference numbers or type designators" of boxes, are you referring to the packaging? As in, this Hornby box is a "clamshell" type. Or, that Hornby package is a "sleeve type". Not the content of the package, but rather the packing, itself.
Or are you referring to prototype railway designators, such as: this carriage is "Her Majesty's Saloon". That wagon is a "Siphon G" type.
I must say, I think it the former rather than the later, but remain completely unsure. The lads will be along in a bit to set me straight!
Bee
-
Hello Towler
Are you sure that the label underneath is the same as the one on top? 😉
Maybe its just me, but I do not envision this situation devaluing anything. Having seen any number of older Hornby items, with just this type of 'over label', I would consider this to be normal practice for Hornby.
You can be confident that your gift recipients will appreciate the wagon, label not withstanding.
Bee
-
Hi 3Link
I do believe you are referring to Experiment LMR32. A locomotive by Roberts and Sharp. A sister locomotive to Experiment was Hibernia, for the Dublin & Kingstown railway. Clear images of Hibernia exist on the internet.
I'd like to have each and every LMR locomotive. Lists of LMR locomotives are readily available. Similarly lists of carriages, rolling stock & etc. The Ox Wagon, the Pig wagon, Cattle, Milk, Logs, etc. All coveted. So yes, Experiment is on my list of locomotives to make. It is too niche for Hornby.
OO Planet just took priority!
In having vast plans, I am always reminded of a Mechanical Engineer named Marvin. Marvin had one piece of artwork hanging on the wall of his office. It was a slogan, to wit: "Never start vast projects with half vast ideas". Heck of a slogan!
I will be covering bell crank locomotives for the forum. Well illustrated of course. Keep an eye out!
Cheers
Bee
-
Welcome back to another OO Planet Update.
During the last update, I discussed the buildup of tolerance and how it could possibly prevent the mechanism from functioning. This update will present my current thinking on how to make sure that doesn’t happen.
There are a pair of control rods on either side of OO Planet. As the valve gear at the smokebox operates, these transfer that motion to the curved handles on the footplate.
When examined in isolation, the control rods that run from front to back form a parallelogram. There are also two axes of rotation. The one in the front drives, the one in the rear is driven by the parallelogram. It is poor mechanical construction to have rotating members be supported by screw threads. On the right, observe the purple washers that the control rods contact. There is a mechanical clearance between the purple washer and the control rods, permitting rotation.
If I manage to get the axle supports to match the CAD design, then a perfect placement yields a control rod 52.462mm long, center to center. The red Xs denote perfect placement.
If I should not get perfect placement, then the control rod may bind. Here, the axle supports for the valve gear on the smokebox face slid downwards by 0.5mm, while the axle supports for the valve gear on the backhead slide upwards by 0.5 mm. Note that the length of the control rod increases to 52.662mm, center to center.
Sliding the axle supports in opposite directions yield a control rod length of 52.280mm, center to center.
An additional set of errors creeps in when the longitudinal distance (front to back on OO Planet) of the axle supports does not meet the CAD model. If the axle supports are too long, then the control rods will be too short. If the axle supports are too short, then the control rods will be too long.
FIRST, SOLVE THE LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE PROBLEM
There will be two construction jigs, used to set the front to back distance, in purple. On the left, the jig axle (red) threads the tube. On the right, observe that the arms that will support the tubes are permanently attached, while the bases that support the arms are attached to the jig. With the axle lowered down and fixed into the groove, the tube support center distance to the base will be set
Similarly
With the longitudinal distance set, we can...
SOLVE THE VERTICAL REFERENCE PROBLEM
The more clever of you have probably been wondering why these parts have a tab projecting beyond the base. They are going to fit into square notches on the smokebox face and the backhead. With the vertical height of the tab and the vertical height and vertical location of the notch controlled, the placement of the axle supports will be far better than the +/- 0.5 mm shown graphically above
Similarly
It is usually good practice to anticipate problems before they occur. It is good practice to make the parts correctly the first time and to avoid troubleshooting of a faulty mechanism and remaking of the parts.
Using these jigs will set the lengths of the axle supports correctly and uniformly. Using reference notches will control the vertical placement of the axle supports to reasonable control. Naturally, the axle supports will be glued to the faces with a temporary axle threading through them, such that the axle supports are co-linear.
Until next update
Bee
-
Hi 81F
Should be no issue to fit narrow tension locks, side to side.
The slightly tricky bit will be the 3D undercarriage. There aren't any flat surfaces there. In an effort to match the centenary carriages, Hornby have reproduced quite a few undercarriage details. Not insurmountable by any stretch, but certainly something to consider
Bee
-
The centenary carriages used straight spoked wheels 81F.
Photographs are clear enough for me.
Bee
-
Caledonian LMR28 is a very unusual locomotive. Vertical pistons, and odd connecting rod arrangement. On my make list, since Hornby will never manufacture it.
Caledonian is drawing a standard first class carriage. Caledonian only ran on the LMR, so we know this is an LMR carriage. The book it appears in contains several LMR images. I emphasize this LMR association.
Note that the spokes are simple straight spokes.
Here is the interesting part for you 81F. The artist took the time to depict the unusual piston arrangement. Would he not have sketched in any odd spoke arrangement too? I think the answer is, yes, he would, were it there.
I will repeat my earlier answer. You can actually and reasonably pick anything that you please. But in general, the simple, straight spokes were depicted for LMR carriages
Bee
-
Armengaud shows split spoke wheels. The railway is not specified. There are some characteristics of the LMR, others not.
Note the steps are very close to the Hornby presentation.
-
Here are some other, period wheel arrangements.
A chaldron on the Stockton and Darlington
A utility wagon on the Bolton and Leigh
A sampling from Wood, Practical Treatise, 1838
As a reminder, all images can be zoomed
Bee
-
Railway Oddities
in General Discussion
Posted
Hello Roger B.
I am sorry that my title did not meet with your standards.
I carefully considered just how long a title could be. Hornby permits 254 characters, including spaces and punctuation, as found by careful experimentation.
I considered that if Hornby allocated the space, I was permitted to use the space.
I thought the title a bit of a lark, as it was a great fit for 1830s titles and 1830s books.
Example: 1829, Zachariah Allen The Science of Mechanics as applied to the Present Improvements in the Useful Arts, in Europe and the United States of America: Adapted as a Manual for Mechanics and Manufacturers and containing Tables and Calculations of General Practical Utility This title is 248 characters long (only counted it once). He offers an interesting paragraph about friction and the LMR.
I carefully trialed titles in the wee hours, so as not to disturb others. I wanted a title to be very description of what the reader would see and that was equally as long as Allen's. The behavior of the Hornby Forum is to clip titles that are too long, right in mid word, without apology.
After a bit of work, I left one character on the table. My title was 253 characters long. Hornby permits 254.
This is not a request to change your mind or the like. I just wanted you to understand what I was about. Hornby allocated space. I came up with a title, befitting the post, that utilized the available space, almost to the dot. It was a tribute to the 1830s.
If you would like to tell me why you felt it inappropriate, I would respectfully like to hear it. Not from an argumentative perspective, but just for insight. Thanks
Bee