What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
-
Correct Topcat. The earth's magnetic field will not affect a reed switch.
But if the Airfix locomotive affects the compass, we know that there is a magnetic field developed by that locomotive. Which, if strong enough, will change the state of a reed switch.
Bee
Edit to add: the east-west orientation is to make the magnetic field of the locomotive orthagonal to the earth's magnetic field. This will provide greatest sensitivity to a potential magnetic field of the loco.
-
JJ's issue got me to thinking.
We suspect a magnetic field is developed by the Airfix locomotive.
We could jump into a scientific analysis with magnetometers, measuring the field strength in gauss. Yet none of that is necessary.
Align the carriage and track on an east - west axis. Literally the directions on the earth. Place a compass next to the carriage. It will point north, of course. Play with the Airfix locomotive, just as JJ shows us on video. If the Airfix locomotive develops a magnetic field, the compass needle will move. The field strength of the earth is actually quite low, and should be easily overcome by a field strong enough to flip a reed switch
Bee
-
One wonders whether the forward facing position of the LMR guard was to enable hand signals to be given by the loco crew to instruct braking by the guard.
That Walker plate is most instructive. Common sense tells us that the braking force should be applied at the last carriage in consist. Yet how is that guard to communicate with the engineer and fireman up front? Interestingly, many of the images include a guard riding in the first carriage in consist. Hand signals indeed!
I have looked at that Walker plate for a very long time. Never noticed the handle before, as it blends into the rock face behind. The slog through Wood's excellent drawing provided the spark. I examined each drawing in turn to look for that handle, and there it was!
And now my conundrum. Do I add a tiny wire to my Hornby 1st class carriages? This to represent the brake handle and rod running down the face. A tiny gear?
Hornby have suffered under an anachronism. Carriages today are double ended and have been for over a century. It is reasonable to assume then, that carriages on the LMR were double ended. Clearly, they are not. All of the evidence supports a singular guard station. Yet Hornby have placed two guard stations on the roof. Its understandable and does afford a sense of symmetry to the design. Hornby gets a bye on this from me.
Bee
-
The LMR brake mechanism is presented. As usual, Nicholas Wood, Practical Treatise... 1838
At the top of the image, we have Jupiter, LMR #14, manufactured by Robert Stephenson & Co in 1831. Jupiter was a 'Planet-Type' locomotive, in 0-4-0 configuration. Behind Jupiter, there is a third generation tender. Behind the third generation tender, there is 1st class carriage Traveler, with guard. Of note, Traveler is definitely in Hornby R30232 and should be in Hornby R30090 (time will tell).
In the middle of this image, presented is the original depiction from Plate 6, showing the undercarriage used on the LMR.
On the bottom, I have annotated the brake mechanism. The forward orientation of the carriage is the same. Forward is to the left hand side the image. The guard's right hand will apply the brakes, as the handle(1) is to the right of the guard. To apply the brakes, the guard will rotate the handle (1) clockwise, which causes the rotation of the gear (1) clockwise. This causes the gear (2) to rotate anti-clockwise. Gear (2) drives a double pinion. Rotating gear (2) anti-clockwise causes the red rod (3) to move towards the rear of the carriage, as shown by the yellow arrow. Simultaneously, gear (2), via the double pinion, causes red rod (4) to move towards the front of the carriage, as shown by the yellow arrow. The motion of rod (3) causes the sub-axle(5), green, to rotate, as shown by the pink arrow. A reversing rod on sub-axle (5) causes the brake shoe to be pressed onto the drum of the forward wheel, small yellow arrow. Similarly, the motion of rod (4) causes the sub-axle (6), green, to rotate, as shown by the pink arrow. A reversing rod on the sub-axle (6) causes brake show to be pressed onto drum of rear wheel, small yellow arrow.
To disengage the brake, lever at (1) is rotated anti-clockwise. This will cause the break shoes to be pulled away from the drum of the wheels, in a reversal of the above description.
As (a) the brake mechanism is actuated via the handle shown (b) there only is one handle depicted in the Wood plate, and © the position of that singular handle is on the front of the carriage; therefore the guard should be seated facing forward. Most of the carriages depicted, with a guard, have that guard facing forward. Ackermann, Freeling, Colyer, Crane and Sandars only show forward seated guards. Ackermann, Crane and Freeling go so far as show that there is no rearward facing guard station, even with the rear of the 1st class carriages quite visible. It simply isn't there. Admittedly, Crane and Freeling are derivative images.
Yet there is one image which must be examined. James Scott Walker, An Accurate Account of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway ... 1832, has a plate which includes a rake of 1st class carriages in the Olive Mount Cutting. A spectacular image, giving a sense of the depth of the cutting.
The first carriage in consist has a forward facing guard. The last carriage in consist has a rearward facing guard. Further, the handle (1) appears to be visible for inspection, mounted atop a long rod! The rod appears mounted to the outside face of the carriage. This is consistent with the position shown by Wood.
The gears (1) and (2), must therefore be in the undercarriage. I think you can see the gears in the undercarriage on the full Walker plate, but this is not certain. What ever that is is in the right spot for the gears and, to me, looks like gears, but your mileage may vary.
If we accept Wood and Ackermann, and we should, then there is no rearward facing guard station. Therefore this last carriage is being pulled from the wrong end, facing the wrong way for travel. The alternative is that there were two guard stations, albeit not shown by any period illustration I can find.
Bee
-
Hi Threelink
When examining these configurations, I think it important to consider context.
Before this buffering arrangement, there were coiled springs in leather bags and before that wood bashing on wood. We also know that this buffering arrangement was superceded by Booth's patent of 1836. So it is a snapshot in time.
This arrangement certainly was an improvement over nothing at all. Consider the carriages simply crashing into the one ahead. All the energy, dissipated at once, resulting in high deceleration forces. The coiled spring arrangement was little better. Force is linearly proportional to compression for coiled springs. If made stiff enough (k of the spring high), then a lightly loaded carriage will feel the same as crashing without springs. The carriage crashes into a stiff spring and there is no compliance. If the spring is made more compliant to soften a lightly loaded carriage (k of the spring low), then a heavily loaded carriage will bottom out the coiled spring, end of travel, resulting in yet another crash. Was the coiled spring better than nothing? Yes, but still insufficient.
The buffering arrangement presented here was better. Greater travel of the spring results in more energy dissipation before crash. From an engineering standpoint, the rearward facing buffers present significant bending dilemmas in the mechanism. The diagonal rods connected to the reversing rods have forces applied in angles away from the axial sense. That results in bending moments. Trying to use one spring for multiple functions is an admirable engineering goal, yet a spring must have something to react against. I specifically did not discuss the reaction force arrangement before. The hard stops of the spring travel, when the ends and middle are moving, isn't really workable over the variables we see here. But was this arrangement better than before? Oh yes it was.
The continuum of development pressed onwards, with Booth distributing the multiple functions to individual springs in 1836. Was this better? Oh yes, it was.
Context is important. The LMR was a grand laboratory. Rails, sleepers, locomotives, carriage design, and on and on; it was all on! Buffering included.
I've now read a few reports, such as yours, of the rough rides on heritage lines. Permit me to express my jealousy. I'd really like to experience that rough ride but alas, wrong side of the Atlantic. The lads running the heritage line are doing the best they can, with antiquated, worn out equipment, on irregular rail. You still got the ride and likely had fun! Still jealous!
Bee
-
I wrote to Mr. Simon Kohler. Among other things, I thanked him for the Booth carriage in R30090.
His response: "As for the Henry Booth carriage, you are most welcome."
I think that sorts any doubt over Hornby's intent about the carriage. It is indeed the Booth carriage, as strongly suspected.
Bee
-
Looking good Alberto!!
I agree with DRC, those people in the bubble car really are an enhancement!
Bee
-
Hi Threelink
I am indeed familiar with that print, and have just posted that up under Wishlists for the Chinese Liverpool 1st class carriage.
Now carefully examine the wagon on the bottom middle. Notice the two openings on the end of the carriage? Mighty small for cattle if you ask me, and two levels aren't needed. That center wagon is for sheep, and you can see this in the Ackermann prints (Ackermann publisher, Bury artist). The wagon is shown with sheep drawn as cargo! I do not understand how the caption on that image could be so wrong.
The print is clearly derivative of the Booth print, and we know that Booth did not provide any explanation of his print. Northumbrian substitutes for the "Booth Unicorn" carriage. The strange open 2nd is replaced by the Chinese Liverpool carriage. The odd carriage in the middle left (horse drawn carriage body on a railway undercarriage) is subtly different. Yet it is, at root, the Booth image.
Bee
-
In another thread, some chat revolved around the LMR buffering arrangement depicted by Hornby.
Hornby have a single leaf spring, with two rods leading diagonally to a coupling location. In that other thread, we discovered that this arrangement is not the Henry Booth patent of 1836, adopted by the LMR and other influential railways, as the Booth patent comprises 4 leaf springs. The buffering arrangement depicted by Hornby must therefore predate that 1836 patent.
I have found the appropriate reference. Once again, Nicholas Wood, Practical Treatise... , 1838. Plate VI
In the lower left hand corner, you may observe an undercarriage with a singular leaf spring. I offer the snip from that plate here, to be sure of your understanding
The description of that plate can be found in the text. It specifically states that the arrangement is used on the LMR.
There are two items which jumped off the page. Firstly, what Hornby calls fine scale chains, Nicholas Wood refers to them as "drag chains"! Secondly, the darts or arrows show the direction of travel of LMR carriages! They are not to be run in random orientation, rather, the concave portion of the leaf spring must face forwards! Today I learned...
To further save my readers the exercise of pouring through pages of antiquated text, of matching letter references between text and plate that are hundreds of pages apart. Moreover, to show the full mechanical arrangement instead of forcing the reader to mentally manipulate images to realize the mechanism. Therefore, I have colorized the images and re-arranged the illustration to show the mechanism under two circumstances. Acceleration, that is, as the train leaves the station. Deceleration, that is, as the train arrives at the station.
Acceleration
The train is leaving the station from stopped.
Drag Chain, orange, couples the two carriages. Darts, pink, indicate direction of travel. As the carriage on the left pulls away, the carriage on the right resists the pull. The ends of the leaf spring, blue, on the left carriage are pulled by rods, yellow, connected to a center rod, green, which couples to the dra g chain, orange. This means the ends of the leaf spring, blue, are pulled away from the direction of travel. In the trailing carriage, the drag chain, orange, is connected to a center rod, yellow, which applies force to the center of the leaf spring, blue. This means that the center of the leaf spring, blue, is pulled in the direction of travel.
Deceleration
The train is arriving at the station and coming to a stop.
The drag chain no longer has any affect. I will begin with the description of the trailing carriage, as this is fairly easy to see. The buffers have a long sliding rod, navy blue, which are coupled to the ends of the leaf spring, blue. The carriage momentum pushes against the ends of the leaf spring, blue, leading to a controlled stop (well, not so much). The leading carriage is also involved in this process, albeit with a much more complicated arrangement. The buffers lead to a short rod, navy blue. These are connected to diagonal push rods, yellow. The diagonal push rods are connected to pivoting reversing rods, red. The pivoting reversing rods are connected to short pulling rods, green. These in turn are connected to the singular leaf spring, blue. Therefore, a push on the trailing buffers on the leading carriage results in a pull against the ends of the leaf spring.
In acceleration and deceleration, the leaf spring in each carriage is involved. Not explained are the series of end stops required to make the middle and ends of the leaf springs react under different load directions.
Now the sharp eye will detect a gear on the carriage, which is not involved in the buffering. At last, the method of carriage braking is within my grasp. That gear provides the mechanical advantage for the guard to apply the brake.
Bee
-
I've cross referenced all the 1st class carriages by name, and provide the appropriate Hornby product reference.
Booth Early 1st Class R30090
Despatch R346, R621, R796, R3809
Experience R621, R796, R3809, R30232
Globe R3810, R40357
Huskisson R40371, R30090
Renown R3810
Royal Mail R3956
Times R621, R796, R3809, R40372
Traveller R30232, R30090
Treasurer R3956
Wellington R3810, R40357
I would appreciate being notified of any errors.
EDIT: 2 "L" s in Traveller
-
The Liverpool and Manchester Railway had a very curious carriage, about which we know very little. We have a few images and little else. Clearly, it is a carriage from the early days. It is autonomously named the Chinese Liverpool carriage.
Let us begin with an Ackerman print
Bottom row, left. A yellow carriage, but it doesn't look at all like 1st Wellington, or 1st Queen Adelaide, also present in the same illustration. There is a center door, a wall of openings and an odd shape.
Ackermann prints have variation when printed, some are better than others, better colors, etc. This alternate print clearly shows those openings are glass windows
We have some more inescapable evidence. The Ackermann prints also include this gem of the railway office on the Liverpool end of the line
Notice that carriage furthest away. Indisputably that Chinese Liverpool carriage, coupled to a rake of nominal 1st class carriages.
Ackermann prints are considered fairly definitive. We can examine the evidence provided with a fair degree of confidence.
Firm Conclusion #1. Clearly a 1st class carriage. Its yellow, reserved for 1st. It has glass windows, found only on 1st class carriages.
It is coupled to other 1st class carriages.
The Liverpool and Manchester Railway Trust found this piece of artwork in their files. There is no attribution or even a tentative date. It simply exists.
Now that train in the middle made me sit up. It shows the Chinese Liverpool carriage, but interestingly, further back in the rake are those odd, Double Box Center Entry 2nd Class Carriages.
This got me thinking. Are they similar? I examined the Ackermann print that has a rake of those Double Box Center Entry 2nd Class Carriages. I selected one and performed an imagery comparison.
I first flipped over the Chinese Liverpool image so the perspective was the same, you can see that, the writing is inverted. I then changed the sizes whilst maintaining proportions, until the width of the center entry on both carriages was the same. I then compared the length of the Chinese Liverpool to the Double Box Center Entry 2nd Class Carriages. Almost perfectly the same, from two different Ackermann prints. What attention to detail! I then presented that Chinese Liverpool 1st class carriage image, now fixed in size, for an elevation comparison. Again, nearly a perfect match!
Firm Conclusion #2: The two carriages are extremely close in general proportions. This becomes a fundamental consideration to estimating passenger count.
The Ackerman print of trains has one with three Double Box Center Entry 2nd Class Carriages in consist. So 6 boxes of passengers for three carriages. I then counted the number of passengers in each box and found that the quantity varied between 8 and 10 persons. I could also observe that many of the passengers closest to the viewer had their backs to us. This leads me to a tentative seating arrangement.
In the top half of the image, I propose that in the Double Box Center Entry 2nd Class Carriages, the corridor is in between the seats. This would be consistent with the passenger backs, as shown. Passenger legs dangle in the middle of the two facing benches. White circles with blue borders are nominal passenger seating locations. Since this is second class, more passengers could squeeze in, or even stand in the corridor. 8 to 10 passengers per box.
In the bottom half of the image, I propose the probable seating arrangement for the Chinese Liverpool carriage. With the narrowing of the top half, the passengers cannot be seated facing in, but will be seated facing out, back to back on longitudinal center.
Now why 3 passengers on each side of the bench? Carefully examine the Ackermann carriage illustration. Notice the yellow muntins? Muntins are vertical window separation members. I've carefully indicated each yellow muntin. Note the size of the center door window, and then each of the side windows. The center door must be slightly greater than shoulder width, to permit passenger boarding. The windows on either side are narrower, but not by much. Passengers can be seated closer together in dimension than corridor widths. This leads me to a tentative conclusion of 1 window per passenger. The passengers sit side by side, facing out, looking at the spectacular view of the country side passing by, through the window. 3 per side per box.
I get a maximum capacity of 12 passengers with this analysis of the Chinese Liverpool carriage.
This may be compared to 1st Wellington. Three compartments, two facing benches per compartment, three abreast. That is, 6 passengers per compartment × 3 compartments, yields maximum capacity of 18 passengers for 1st Wellington.
While watching the panoramic view may have been wonderful for the passengers in the Chinese Liverpool carriage, the efficiency of the nominal 1st class carriage meant more paying passengers and more revenue per carriage for the LMR. The Chinese Liverpool carriage fades into oblivion.
Hornby have demonstrated an appetite for LMR carriages. R30090 has the carriage Booth illustrated in 1830. The Royal Mail carriage in R3856. Queen Adelaide's carriage in R40357.
Why not the Chinese Liverpool carriage? Its fairly easy to model, in basic principle a narrower box on top of a wider box Window glazing with the black and yellow muntins printed on the glazing. Roof racks and a seat for the guard. Black printing of the name and pin stripes. The undercarriage is identical to any 1st class LMR carriage.
Please!
Bee
-
Threelink, you wrote:
I wonder if Booth was trying to illustrate an early form of sprung buffer where the spring was contained within the buffer housing and the whole was stuffed with horsehair and bound in leather?
Noted LMR historian Mr. Anthony Dawson agrees with your description of an early sprung buffer. In his book Locomotives of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway 2021, page 224, he goes on to quote Henry Booth's testimony before Parliament. Booth stated that the buffering arrangement was only provided to 1st class carriages for the first two years of LMR operation. 2nd class carriages received no such treatment.
Opening day on the LMR was 15 Sept 1830. The Booth book, and hence the carriage depicted, is from 1830. 2 years before early sprung buffers would be applied to 2nd class carriages.
An examination of the image in the original post (and I contend, the coach Hornby model in R30090) has strange objects where the buffers would be. Drawn cylindrical, consistent with a coiled spring. Certainly not the typical buffer. I must say, Threelink, you have a sharp eye. I agree with you.
Now putting that evidence together, we have a carriage with an early sprung buffer, depicted before 1832, when only first class carriages had such an arrangement. Does this mean the carriage depicted is actually a 1st class carriage? I think it does! If we accept early sprung buffer, the conclusion is inescapable. 1st Class.
I do believe Hornby will be getting another order for this train pack.
Thank you ThreeLink! I learned something today!
Bee
-
If it can be taken apart and put the right way round, then there is zero "misprint value".
If it can be put right, do so.
If not, and you want it right, contact Hornby Customer Service.
Bee
-
@threelink Stone sleepers will be fairly evident, as they are ~2 feet square with a hole center drilled for a oak plug. That would be quite a thrill to find. Naturally, the responsible society should be informed and the block left in situ for archeological investigation.
@rana temporia. Modeling fishplate rails on stone sleeper blocks is a secret (well, not anymore 😁) desire of mine. This would require making my own fishbelly rail and rail joiners. I have been dreaming of this but have yet to come to a practical method of manufacture. Casting?
Of the 31 miles of the LMR, ~18 were in stone block and the remainder in wood sleepers. The rails were mounted directly to the rock substrate in the Olive Cutting. It is generally agreed that stone sleeper blocks didn't work well and were largely replaced over time. Wood sleepers maintain the gauge, but as the stone blocks were independent, I can easily see the gauge drifting over time.
Bee
-
The dumb buffers illustrated by Henry Booth in his 1830 book show only dumb buffers. I have re-read that book just now, searching for an explanation of the plate, a description of the rolling stock and perhaps some information about the buffers. Booth does not even provide a description of the plate. In that, no joy.
I stated that the Nicholas Wood illustrations of 1834 shown only dumb buffers but that the 1838 Practical Treatise ... shows sprung buffers. This narrowed down sprung buffers into a 4 year period.
According to Wood, 1838, one Mr. Henry Booth received an 1836 patent for sprung buffers. This is obviously the same individual. What appears to be the patent drawing is opposite page 218. I present that here:
There are four springs mounted in the center of the undercarriage. The two outer, smaller springs ease the jerk during acceleration. They are connected to the center mounted hook by a long rod in tension. The two inner, larger springs ease the jerk during deceleration. They are connected to the four buffer rods under compression. This leads us to the method by which the carriages are attached to each other, by screw link coupling. Shown next to the undercarriage in the illustration. The ball at the end of the lever is designed to prevent the lever from unscrewing.
In practice, Booth specifies that the carriages are drawn up to each other by the screw link until the buffers are touching, then the screw link is turned "two or three times more...equal to about a fourth or fifth of the elasticity of the springs".
Wood goes on to say that the Booth patent was adopted by the Liverpool and Manchester, the Grand Junction and the London and Birmingham railways. Thismlikely was a generous source of income for Booth.
Upon closer examination of the Hornby under carriage, it is clear that the Booth patent was not followed. I do suspect that the Hornby undercarriage closely matches the replicas built in 1930.
Bee
-
Deem
This all comes down to the following
1) if the round barrel of the shoulder screw can go through the green wheel, you need to fix the nut into the back of the green wheel with a bit of adhesive.
2) if the shoulder of the shoulder screw bottoms out on the green wheel, then any type of thread retainer will keep the shoulder screw from loosening on the nut
This is total sum of the problem. You can do both, of course. Affix the nut with adhesive to the green wheel AND use some thread retainer.
Bee
-
With the interest shown, perhaps some other morsels are in order. Booth depicted several pieces of rolling stock on that plate, that plate shown here:
Top Left: Carriage in Train Pack R30090, which we have previously discussed.
Top Right: 1st Class Carriage Wellington. The yellow carriage now most commonly associated with the LMR in modern imagery.
Bottom Left: Yet another 2nd class carriage. It had to be a very early 2nd class carriage, as there was no roof, a feature swiftly added to prevent burns to passenger clothing from the locomotive exhaust.
Bottom Center: double decked Sheep Wagon. The LMR did a roaring trade in transporting sheep. Hornby have offered R40165 sheep wagon pack. I cannot wait for this to arrive.
Bottom Right: I believe this to be a pig wagon. Single decked. I suspect this will be offered by Hornby in the coming years, due to simplicity of adaptation.
And now on to the most unusual carriage. Top row, center. Zoomed for your convenience. This is absolutely not a horse drawn carriage loaded onto a flat wagons. Ackermann depicts horse drawn carriages loaded onto flat wagons. Not the same!
This carriage depicted by Booth carriage has only railway wheels and represents one of the very earliest 1st class carriages. The LMR turned to the carriage trade for ideas in early days. The carriage trade built the body of a horse drawn carriage onto a railway undercarriage! When compared to Wellington, this carriage had far fewer seats. The guard would sit in the open seats on the front (left) of the carriage, where the horse drawn carriage driver would sit. Baggage in the rear compartment. The center inside could seat possibly 8, but much more likely 6 or 4, consistent with horse drawn carriages of the period. Go back and look at the Ackermann private carriage for reference. Carriage Wellington, yellow 1st class carriage depicted on the Booth plate, could seat 18 passengers.
Bee
Mods: This will only be submitted once...I hope 😁
-
@Topcat
A "Sharpie" permanent black marker will make swift work of colored insulation, turning the wires all black.
Since I am not in the UK, I do not know if a "Sharpie" is known as a Sharpie in the UK. So forgive me for using a US trade name!
I'm convinced, however, such marking tools do exist!
Bee
-
Hi Rana Temporia
When Hornby decided to bring Rocket back in 2020, they had some critical decisions to make. Should they model the reproduction carriages present at the museum, or use the period illustrations? Additionally, Rocket still exists, as both a reproduction and a preserved locomotive.
For the 1st class carriages, in yellow, and the third class carriages, in blue, Hornby have selected the reproduction museum carriages. Hornby have also selected Rocket in Rainhill Trials configuration.
For all the wagons and carriages after that 2020 release, Hornby have relied upon the illustrations.
@threelink The above provides a rational explanation of why the undercarriage is wrong for the Booth Unicorn in R30090. Hornby is using the undercarriage from the 1930s reproductions, across the rolling stock fleet. It follows then that undercarriage would be here.
An examination of the buffers in Wood 1834 shows only dumb buffers. The 1838 edition of Wood shows sprung buffers. The Booth Unicorn in R30090 was from an 1830 publication, pre-dating sprung buffers. Yes, in that it does not match.
Sometimes, I am envious of the wealth of photographic evidence present for other enthusiasts. That didn't exist for the LMR, simply because photography hadn't been invented yet!! On the other hand, I am thrilled with these models Hornby have boldly released. My layout would not exist without them, I would just revel in the books and the history. The models add a wonderful dimension for me and you will not catch me rivet counting
Bee
-
Nearly two CENTURIES have passed JJ. That's a lot of time for technological improvement. The carriage Booth depicted was cutting edge for his time, the absolute pinnacle of achievement.
Bee
-
After a long think, the square panels are situated right where the seats would be.
From the extant Robert Stephenson mechanical drawings of the blue carriages, it is known that the stowage of passenger baggage was under those seats.
Perhaps the square panels, depicted in Booth's image, are the access ports to under seat stowage for these carriages.
Just a thought
Bee
-
I really empathize with you moderators on this one. What a headache this must be.
If the web team won't do a pop up box, they could just do a "awaiting approval" image in place of the actual image. That way, we get to see our post is there (albeit without the proper images) and will not post it again. Just a different concept that achieves the same goal, to wit: no double posts.
That would also give me a chance to correct the small errors, grammatical, spelling, punctuation and of course, white space 😉, because I can see it and edit the text; all while waiting moderator approval of my images!!
Bee
-
Nut retainer. Locktite 242 is one example.
A tiny little dab will do ya!
After you know everything fits together, remove the screw and place a very, very small amount of the nut retainer on the threads of the screw. Think micro grams here. Follow the directions about curing.
Problem solved
Bee
Hornby Maglight system - first impressions
in General Discussion
Posted
Hi JJ
I would place the compass on the roof of the carriage, directly over the reed switch.
The idea is really quite simple. A compass is sensitive to the tiny magnetic field of the earth. In the absence of other magnetic fields, the compass will point to the earth's magnetic north pole. So if another field is present and not aligned to the earth's pole, the compass needle will move.
Where do you want to see if there is a magnetic field? At the switch! So put the compass there.
You can easily isolate which component is generating that magnetic field by moving a component closer to and further away from your maglight, checking to see if the compass needle moves.
Bee
A compass is an incredibly inexpensive magnetometer. It won't tell you the field strength, but it absolutely will tell you if there is a magnetic field present, or not.