What About The Bee

Hello Robert Wapping Tunnel and its stationary engine were at the western¹ end of the line. Under Liverpool. In so far as the eastern² end of the line, near Manchester, an excellent reference is Liverpool Road Station, Manchester by Fitzgerald. The track plan at the station is in that, along with the fiftyish turntables at the station. There really isn't an authoritative track plan, but Ordnance Surveys do exist. Stephenson's survey is preserved, as are period images. 13 Colored Views of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway will give you a sense of appearances. Bee ¹&² I had these switched. Thanks for the correction Brew Man

I've been waiting for an item I paid for in June 2022. I last contacted the shop on 1 November this year and there is still some kerfuffle. I will be very unlikely to purchase from them in the future. No names, please! As far as status, I think Rapido does an excellent job. https://rapidotrains.co.uk/delivery-schedule/ Simmo009, when you speak with Hornby, please show them that page! Bee

Flange-less wheels were a Robert Stephenson invention! The main worry with Planet, LMR 9, was the lateral force that flanged wheels placed on crank axles. Patentee, LMR 33, was a 2-2-2. The center driving wheels were, as usual, on cranked axles. To eliminate the lateral forces created on cranked axles, Stephenson eliminated the flange. No flange means no lateral force. This was explicitly stated by Stephenson as a patent criteria. The front and rear axles contained flanged wheels, per the patent, and the driving wheels with the crank axle did not. Bee

Hello Roger Oscar Paisley just did a video which features Hornby Dublo wagons by Meccano. In the video he removes the wheel hangers. Skip to about 20:40 for the procedure. Alternatively, sit back and observe a great layout! Bee

Andrew Your boys are NOT, repeat NOT, to blame. Motors are fairly inexpensive and relatively easy to replace, model dependent. Bee

Hi John This belongs in the category of "Wishlists", as you wish Hornby would produce Grosvenor. There is a page dedicated to that, wherein Hornby has requested this type of information. Bee Alternatively, one of the mods might move this to the pinned thread in Wishlists.

"4 to 6 hours per day, for 6 weeks" The maths bring us to: 168 hours to 252 hours of running time. Given that the life expectancy of a modern can-type motor is ~150 hours of running time, the recommended locomotive should have 1) metal axles and bearings and 2) an easily replaceable motor. Alternatively, the entire locomotive should be inexpensive enough to replace every year. Bee

Three Link: I claim no special knowledge of how this situation came to be. My interest fundamentally ends after 1845. Your explanation certainly makes sense. Forcing a passenger to choose between 3rd (oh the horror!) or 1st, in combination with class consciousness, could certainly work the way you say. Brew Man: I was unsure of how the oddity of the missing 2nd class carriages would be received. If it helped you, then I am happy. The only reason I discovered this was because of those 2 carriages on a siding in Victoria Station. RogerB: I had no idea what I would discover when I was looking through the (literal) 8999 books online. There are many more oddities to come. Next month I focus on what may be the oddest railway thing I have ever seen. Do not miss it!! Bee

On today's edition of Signal Box, there was segment on the Corornation Observation Car. This may very well be the identical coaches to the ones in the previous image. The designers did talk about the difficulty in the articulation. I found it difficult to understand, as the sound quality faded in and out. Bee

In this month's edition of Railway Oddities, I take a look at an image of Victoria Station, in Manchester. Victoria Station was the junction of two railways: the Liverpool and Manchester Railway with the Manchester and Leeds Railway. The date of image creation is of great interest to me, 1844.* The reason is straightforward. We have many illustrations of the LMR, but they are primarily of the early days. The grand experiment was of great public interest, which resulted in a plethora of books and art. Yet very few illustrations or contemporary books are available from the later days, as the LMR sought to protect its secrets from other railways. This image of Victoria Station was created at the very end of the LMR, consolidated in 1845. In studying the carriages in the image, we find this on the far right These two odd carriages hold great interest, because of the Railway Regulation Act of 1844. Parliamentary Trains If your railway interest includes anything before 1956, then you may be puzzled by the lack of 2nd class carriages. There certainly are 1st class, and oddly 3rd class, but no 2nd class carriages. What "oddity" is that? In 1844, Parliament made it law that there was to be an affordable train for the poor and working class. The railways complied by making 1 train each day in either direction. Early in the morning or late at night, so as to not undercut their existing 2nd class service. If the mandated class was available, a 2nd class passenger might save money by riding 3rd class. We can't have that, now can we? The LMR reacted like many early railways did to the Railway Act of 1844. The LMR had 4 inside and 6 inside 1st class carriages. The LMR also had seated 2nd class carriages. But no 3rd class carriages**. Accomodation for this mandated service was fairly crude on most railways, sometimes called "Standups" because the passengers weren't seated. We do know that the existing 2nd class carriages on the LMR were demoted to 3rd and new enclosed 2nd class carriages were constructed. Sadly, no images exist. No Standups either on the LMR, no matter what the LMS constructed in the late 1920s for Lion's celebratory parade and that Hornby reproduced. Because these trains were mandated by Parliament, they became known as Parliamentary Trains. By 1875, accommodation on the Parliamentary Trains had improved and there was little differentiation between 2nd and 3rd. The railways saw little point in 2nd class and simply dropped the class. Viola, 1st and mandated 3rd, but no 2nd! An oddity explained. Back to the Carriages As I studied those two carriages in the image, my first thought was Railway Act compliance. The timing is right. The LMR ended in 1845 and the image was created in 1844. The base carriage was of the original 2nd class type, with 3 scalloped bays. The carriages are in an LMR serviced area, Victoria Station. A contributing thought was that these were very early composite carriages, with the outside compartments being 3rd, the center inside compartment being 2nd. My excitement was palpable. 8999 returned searches later, we have: The Builder, Volume II, issue XLVIII, January 1844, page 21. This architectural digest describes Victoria Station. A few details from the article: Victoria Station was 852 feet long by 130 feet wide. The lanterns are gas, controlled by a central valve, which illuminate the station for arrivals and departures. We can see those lanterns in the image. The center span is 59 feet 6 inches wide. The Builder claims that the roof "forms the largest extent of railway roofing in the kingdom". 5 main lines of rail from end to end. And then, The Builder describes the two carriages! They have names, to wit: The Tourist and The Gondola. The carriages were constructed at the direction of the board of the Manchester and Leeds Railway, for the inspection of the line. The interior spaces communicated with the outer spaces, such that a person could walk between compartments. The carriages have the look and feel of very early observation carriages, but alas, not composite carriages. Not part of the LMR. Not carriages in public service. Sad noises and disappointment from the LMR enthusiast. The article itself is linked below. There are details vis the gas lighting, track sidings and the carriages which I didn't repeat here. You may view the article, starting on the far left column, titled Victoria Station. Its not very long, and could be well worth your time, if your interest is early railways. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t9188674x&view=1up&seq=25 Bee *The artist, Arthur Tait, passed in 1905. Copyright extends for 70 years after the death of the copyright holder. This image has only been in the public domain for 48 years. Rather surprising for a period image of the LMR. **Walker, 1832, shows only 1st and 2nd Class fares on the LMR.

Hello Richard If your track work is all new, than you can readily assume compliance to the standard. Thank you for clarifying. The new bit of information is a gem however. You mentioned tiny brake bits near the wheels and how these may interfere with the wheels when the back to back is set properly. If the wheels are catching on the brakes due to normal tolerances then the wheels can bind and climb rails. Tiny plastic bits are also subject to deformation as they cool. Plastic can be urged back into design position by the gentle application of heat. You do not need to melt the wagon into a puddle of plastic, but a little heat briefly applied to a tiny member will soften it, permitting it to be re-set into a new position. Set the back to back first, then examine the play in the axles vs interference of wheels with the brakes. Bee

Hi Topcat I plead guilty. The word is spelled as you say. I actually do not mind my spelling errors corrected. As way of explanation, in the US, we call them "trucks". In an effort to conform to a British audience, I attempted to use a British word. Bogie, not boggie. Thank you. Bee

Hi Choo Choo! Factor One: The rolling resistance of the axle in its bearing. If insufficient torque is applied, the axle will not turn. Rolling resistance is friction between the axle and bearing. Factor Two: the torque generated due to the frictional force of the wheel on the rail. The frictional force is a function of the force vector perpendicular to the rail (weight of the boggie, spring force if any, etc). XYZ's first check: Are the wheels touching the track? In this case, factor two, the torque, is zero, because there is zero force on the wheels perpendicular to the rail. The wheels skate. Similarly, if the wheels are just touching the track. The perpendicular force vector is low, which generates insufficient torque to turn the wheels. The wheels skate. Analogously, as the torque generated is a proportional to the perpendicular force, a large perpendicular force generates a large torque.. The torque overcomes the rolling resistance. The wheels turn. Rolling resistance can be higher if the wheels, the axles and or bearings are dirty. Rolling resistance can be lowered through the judicious use of lubrication, being careful to not bathe the entire assembly in a liter of oil. 🙃 Checking that the wheels turn when you twist them by finger generates orders of magnitude higher torque than would be generated by the wheels on track. That really isn't a terribly informative test. Either the perpendicular force is too low OR the rolling resistance is too high. Removing the boggie, as XYZ says, will help to isolate the factors. If the boggie wheels turn on their own when the boggie is pushed along the track, but not when attached to the locomotive, then the locomotive is holding the boggie up, which limits the perpendicular force. You can experiment by adding perpendicular force (finger press) on the isolated boggie testing. Clean everything. Gently lubricate. Test the boggie by itself. Report back. Bee

Hello Richard Firstly, I do not have your Drax Biomass Wagons. I was hopeful that someone who did would be along to help you, but alas, that did not happen. From what you wrote, I gather that the coupling catches on the point work AND the wheels seem dodgy. Wheel issues will be resolved by careful measurements. It is far more than just setting the back to back measurement to X. It is the entire system of rail gauge, point work including check rails, wheel dimensions, etc, that make the system work. Not just one measurement. Now you did mention that you do not have any measurement tools. You are going to need a tool, may I suggest a dial caliper. With that in hand, you may measure per this advice https://85a.uk/00-sf/setting_00_wheels.php You will note that there is a different back to back dimension as a function of wheel width. The drum or tread width is critical on point work, which is why the back to back changes. And speaking of pointwork, your points should conform to https://doubleogauge.com/intermediate-track/ Note that stating such and so works merely means that the system for that combination functions, but is no guarantee of being correct for other combinations. As to the coupling. If it catches, then simply trim or file a bit off of the offending part. I will assume tension locks. The tongue stinking down is used mainly for uncoupling. It will continue to function with a slightly shorter tongue. Bee

Sam Hornby Dublo is the very top of the mark. Those sets are frankly awesome. As I re-watched JJ's video, I found myself wanting that set, yet completely out of my era, out of my railway. No reason for me to own it, but I want it. Mate, the set you selected is the bomb! Rallymatt has it right with TT120. You can fit so much more railway in the same space. All things equal, TT120 is simply better. Here is a completely unsolicited bit of old man advice. Who doesn't love that, some dottering old man telling you how to live. But here goes: if you want this gift to be a success, participate. Sit there with your Father as it runs. Discuss the point work. Add a new building. Spend some time with him on the advantages of a level crossing. When you look back at Hornby adverts, the theme of Father/Son is recurrent. There is a reason. Participate Periodically. Bee

Hornby Head of Brand must be aware of the enduring market power of Rocket. Hornby Head of Brand should also be aware of the continued call for LMR carriages and locomotives. Hornby would be well advised to stop looking at 1980's artwork. Those stamps are inspirational but do NOT match contemporary period artwork. Period artwork exists in abundance. Hornby Head of Brand should not confuse the demand for proper Era 1 kit; with the poor sales performance of Era 1 rolling stock, rolling stock based upon 1980's stamps. Bee https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/lmr-early-locos-370420 https://uk.hornby.com/community/forumstephensons-rocket-royal-mail-coach https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/chinese-liverpool-an-odd-liverpool-and-manchester-railway-carriage-339008 https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/lmr-range-as-individual-items-337872 https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/planet-patentee https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/locomotion-no1 https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/lmr-mail-coach https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/locomotives-at-the-start-of-railways https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/stephensons-rocket-29245 https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/rainhill-trials-set

For the LMR, I would add Twin Sisters, Caledonian, and Experiment. All of these were odd in one way or another and would add amazing visual interest. Of course, Patentee and Planet are better known. Liver, being a Bury locomotive, is certainly a good choice as well. The Rocket class locomotives, Northumbrian et al, are a simple tweak to existing tooling. The cylinders are lower and the smokebox is slightly different, but all and all, quite straightforward. Like making Tiger from Lion. Tenders should add the transitional, type 2 We have Rocket's barrel (type 1) and Lion's purpose build (type 3), but not the metal box on utility wagon (type 2). Bee

6 years to go before the 200th Anniversary of the Rainhill Trials 1829 = 2029. The locomotives. Novelty, Perseverance, San Pariel and of course, Cycloped. Details in this thread: https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/200th-anniversary-rainhill-trials-1829-2029-328559 Special note that R60164 are the carriages used at the Rainhill Trials. Bee

Sam If your dad wants a train set, you really only have a few choices, to wit: Diesel, Steam or Electric. I would suggest you ask him that question. The type will be a preference. Make sure you get that correct. As to controllers, I use the Gaugemaster. It works smoothly and quite well. You do not have to get the top of the line. The single track "Combi" will be more than sufficient to drive any Hornby train set. And for what it is worth, you are a good son to do this. I am sure he will be thrilled! Bee

Sammy If it is any consolation to you, the error you encountered happens in the real world too. Recently, an official signed off on new railcars that would not fit through a tunnel on their system. https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2023/02/spain-spends-258m-in-trains-that-dont-fit-through-its-tunnels/ I worked at a facility that manufactures locomotives. My personal friend was a mechanical engineer who specified the design of those locomotives. He related to me that one time, after the design had been signed off by the client (Egypt as I recall), he noticed that the structure gauge would be violated. After the kerfuffle of telling a foreign official that he just made a huge financial and technical error, the problem was quietly fixed. So not as bad as the Spanish one. I agree with NTPNTPNTP. Fix the layout. You cannot really change locomotive design as we did. But you can fix the track. Bee

Hello Sammy I think what you are saying is that you have left insufficient clearance to permit locomotives and cars to pass each other on a curve. There are a few solutions to this. You can widen the clearance between tracks on the turn. You can make the turn single line working. You can switch to shorter locomotives and rolling stock, in OO, such that the swept envelope is smaller. You could start the turn slightly earlier on the inside line, thus separating the two. While switching to HO may provide some relief, longer HO stock will still sweep a larger envelope. The simplest solution, in my view, is to make the turn a restricted area. Reduced speed, single line working. Treat it like a real railway. Bee

Hi ThreeLink Synthetic ultramarine was developed in the 1820s and is our likely candidate. I sincerely doubt that natural ultramarine was used to paint the 2nd class carriages, given the extraordinary expense of it. That just seems too extravagant for the LMR, with no return on investment. Telling a passenger to find a blue or yellow carriage does make sense. Now as to the part of a railway carriage sitting in your garden? Would you share a picture?? Wow! Bee

The LMR Livery is not precisely known. We have hints and clues. We do have some ledger books. But the matter is subject of quite a bit of speculation. Aquatint Drawings But Bee, I hear you say, what of all those fabulous drawings and aquatints preserved? Don't they show us the livery? Frankly, no. Colored views were produced from etched plates and then water colors were added by a low skill painter at the book publisher. The etched line part remained consistent, while the colors tended to vary. An example of this are the Royal Mail carriage illustrations. The LMR had a grand total of 5 of these carriages, ever. Hornby has this carriage in R3956 We can be fairly certain that these are all Royal Mail. The line drawings are fairly consistent, the outlier being bottom left, where the trailing compartment isn't sloped, but does have the distinctive guard. Yet the livery is all over the map! Fundamentally, a Kaleidescape of color!! So what do we know? We have the Edge Hill Locomotive Works, the LMR's own locomotive manufacturing plant, but only after it came into existence, some years after the LMR opened. I would suggest that the colors are likely consistent with what was present earlier, but there are no guarantees. The ledgers at EHLW mention that the 1st class glass carriages (for their glass windows) were "chrome yellow" If you think that this is different from current run 1st class Hornby carriages, you are not wrong. Once again, we suffer from the preserved 1930s carriages. Ultramarine for 2nd class carriages Certainly not even close to the blue represented in the reproduction carriages. Scarlet Lake for the Royal Mail with black panels. In the Kaleidescape image above, the accepted correct livery is center left. Crest on the center door and letters on first and last. At last, we come to locomotives. The color mentioned in the EHLW ledgers was chrome green. Black was used on the metalwork or possibly just raw wrought iron. We do know that the number appeared on the buffer beam and on the chimney in white. While no image records the font or locations, a letter exists which references the number scheme. Over these colors, a varnish would have been applied as a protectant. Rather than the modern pheonelic resins which are crystal clear, the LMR would have used a natural varnish, giving a brown tint or wash over the color. Rocket was recorded as "yellow", I am unaware of any further refinement. Further, there is a several year gap after Rocket and before EHLW. The Ackermann aquatints do suggest many of the early locomotives were green, with black lining (bands?). Bronze work simply varnished. Again, be very mindful that aquatints are hand colored at the publisher by low skill artists. Bee

Hi 81F Spectacular! Might we have a few other views? FWIW, the pinpoints are hardly noticeable in this view. It is such an oddball wagon that the pinpoints could be a design feature, part of the original intent Bee

Hello Ducking Giraffe If the contest is to be measured by how closely the model resembles the prototype, then you have absolutely met that criteria. I studied the image to be sure what I was observing. The prototype or the model? Mission accomplished, well done lad! Hi BulleidBoy Heck no. It is the arcane approval system that is at root cause of the issue. You responded to one (of many). How were you to know which was "the one". Bee