What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,908 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
I'm hopeful that you might try the MuMetal testing JJ. You have the ideal offending locomotive and you are armed with a compass to test the shield you make.
Bee
-
Weymatt, you wrote:
Hope this gives you a little more confidence that I am not as hopeless as you think!!
I don't think you hopeless. Not at all. I presented you with some areas of concern for resolution. Please do not read too much into that.
Your goal is the same as mine. A wonderful layout that provides great enjoyment.
My current layout is small. I have fun, but I want "the more". The next step is a bigger layout, of course. In planning, I've used SCARM to insure that every physical connection is as perfect as can be. That each curve has a specified radius. Every join has a perfect angle. I've mentally traversed the layout literally thousands of times, considering how it will function. I've used quite a bit of trigonometry to get there.
I then considered the entire electrical schematic. I know every wire routing, bus voltage, polarity, etc. I know where each circuit breaker will be, to protect me. Each and every component, all the wires.
I know exactly how much my proposed layout will cost, the complete BOM (bill of materials).
What I am trying to say is that: Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. The 5 P's of Engineering.
And now that the thought exercise is complete, will I build it? NO! Ha! I discovered, through mental play, that there were some deficiencies. The entire cycle will be repeated, with those deficiencies corrected. The schematics redrawn. Had I built it, those deficiencies would have caused disappointment. Better to discover them now, instead of later, after the layout is constructed.
As mentioned earlier, a monumental layout can prove very challenging. Particularly so if you are going to overlook small problems, which have a tendency to snowball and accumulate. Slow down a bit lad! Turn on your inner CDO.
Bee
-
Has anyone attempted to shield the reed switch from stray magnetic fields?
I've used MuMetal in the past to do so. The effectiveness of the shield has much to do with field strength and orientation, but given the low field strengths generated here, it may be possible.
MuMetal is available in sheet, foil and tape form. Shield the reed switch in a well of MuMetal. Provide a MuMetal surface inside the locomotive shell for the motor of the offending locomotives.
Just a thought.
Bee
-
Hi ThreeLink
It was with great interest that I studied your solution to the Lord of the Isles traction issue. From my understanding, you transferred the load from the tender onto the rear of the locomotive. This lifting the front, you added weight to balance the load over the center driving wheel and thus increased traction.
How clever of ThreeLink, I thought to myself, that indeed will function. And then the penny dropped.
Stephenson had the same issue with Planet. The tractive effort was affected by the force of the driving wheel v track. He understood, quite properly, that Planet had some of that force deducted because the idler wheels in front. The weight was distributed over all the wheels, not just the driving wheels. Patentee was the logical outcome. The front idlers and rear idlers were sprung such that they balanced the load over the driving wheels. Increasing tractive effort.
This is not to deduct from your solution ThreeLink, but rather to commend you for finding the identical solution as one of the true giants of locomotive development. Attaboy!
Bee
PS. Always had my eye on Lord of the Isles. Beautiful loco. Just not my era / railway.
-
Hi Pedro
Thank you for clarifying. By "when the wheels hit the plastic section" do you mean the plastic check rails or the plastic frog?
I hesitate to add a picture, or we will have to wait for a mod.
If the wheels jump UP, then some causes may be:
1) the wheel flanges are hitting the bottom of the frog. The solution is to simply remove a tiny bit of material from the bottom of the frog where the wheel flanges go, the flangeway.
You say that the wheels jump "in any direction" of travel, so this is more likely. Contradicting this is your statement that the locomotives roll through straight without issues. The depth of the flangeway in the frog will be the same for diverting and non diverting routes. If the loco can roll through non diverting without jumping, then the flangeway depth is likely not the issue.
2) the wheel is hitting the point of the frog, right where the rails come together. Picking the point. Although 14.4 mm B2B is to the specification, you can be at 14.35mm and still be in spec. The controlling spec is the width between check rails, at 14.1 mm +/- 0.1mm. Your B2B must clear this. Setting the B2B at 14.3mm or 14.25 will tighten you up around the check rails, pulling the wheel from the frog point.
As you mention the wheels jump from any direction, you are not likely to be picking the point (2).
Along these lines, would you mind describing how you are setting your back to back? Calipers? Tool? Guage blocks?
3) there is a bit of something in the gap between the check rails and the stock rails. When the wheel hits it, it jumps. Consistent with "any direction". Check with some plastic card stock. Make sure they are clear. Unlikely to be on multiple points, but...
4) All rails at the same height? I know this seems to obvious, but worth checking. Run your finger over the top of the rails, check to see its smooth.
If the wheel drops DOWN then jumps up, at the frog: This means that the drum of the wheel, at the frog, is rolling off the rail and then "dropping in" to the gap. The wheel lands on its flange and rolls forward. Naturally, the wheel will jump up when it meets the rail again.
Have you checked your points to see that they are meeting specification?
Bee
-
Hello Pedro48
Change for the sake of change will not solve a problem. It may help you to find the root cause, but stumbling upon the solution to the root cause rarely occurs this way.
Slow down.
Exactly how does your locomotive derail? Slowly push the locomotive through a troublesome point. Do the wheels snag on the point rails? Pinch on the check rails? Drop into the frog? Do the wheels pick the point? What happens? Where is the problem? Precisely.
You mentioned that removing the bogies helped, but you still have issues. This is a perfect example of not finding root cause. You made a change, but really didn't solve the issue. Put those bogies back on. Check all your wheel geometry, but in particular, the back to back of every axle.
Before another change, find the issue. That way, when you do change a parameter, you know it attacks the root cause.
Bee
-
I've just received LMR58 Tiger. I'm very pleased. I did want to share my thoughts
Website and Process
Tiger was part of the 2023 Range Launch. It was originally set for Winter 2022/23 arrival. I thought that must be an error, and was happy to see Hornby update this to Winter 2023/24. They caught the error! On 13 Feb, the arrival season went blank. I pinged the website repeatedly and 2 days later, it showed "in stock". It was shipped shortly thereafter and arrived today, 21 Feb. Assessment: The arrival date shifted out a year, and then back a year. I think this due to the "Winter" phrase. Hornby should simply pick month and year. It would lead to less confusion at Hornby! On the plus side, it shows as "despatched" and not "processing", so there is website progress!!
Tiger
The locomotive reasonably depicts Lion, as found and documented in 1929. Trans. Liverpool Engineering Society, Vol L, 1929.
×
As Lion and Tiger were sister locomotives, built at the same time, using Lion's image as the inspiration is fair play. Hornby has taken its model of Lion and substituted in the firebox as photographed in 1929. Different chimney. Same crew. The instruction sheet says "Lion". The entire model is mechanically the same. If you were happy with Lion (and I am), you will be happy with Tiger. It matches what it says on the tin.
The Wagons
These diminutive wagons are precisely what everyone thought. They are indeed the same tooling as Rocket's tender. A door has been added to the front, giving four sides. The coal load and barrel removed, a wood floor replaces that. They look too small behind Tiger, and they should. These are the wagons used at the Rainhill trials, and Tiger was a freight locomotive after a decade of evolution and practice. Tiger would have been capable of large consists and these tiny wagons are simply not. They do, however, look terrific behind Rocket.
Again, I'm quite pleased overall. Hornby made good use of the existent tooling to provide another locomotive for the fleet. As well, good use of existent tooling to provide another bit of rolling stock, expanding selection.
Bee
-
Hi WeyMatt 👋.
Before I begin, I will point out that I suffer from CDO. This is the same illness as OCD, but in my case, the letters are arranged properly! A joke obviously. I do not have this affliction. But it serves to highlight what follows.
I've carefully studied this portion of the plan. I include the reference image so you can understand what I am talking about
Firstly, yes, you need that isolating section. You do understand that the length of any train you run MUST be less than this isolated section. How long is it, in inches?
There are a few track difficulties.
Right at your curved point cross over, I see this gap. My CDO demands that you close it.
There are these two 6.8" flex tracks that overlap. Neither completes the circuit. My CDO is twitching.
In this area, R8072 does not properly connect to R8073.
In this area, you've selected Marklin double slip 24624 and connected it to Hornby R8073 point. R8073 doesn't connect properly after that. Have you considered the track code? The relative heights of the tops of the rails? Whilst they can be made to join, they will not simply clip together. Different systems, different attachments. There is lots to consider here. Now my CDO is making me nervous!
And finally we come to this. You have R8072 and R8073 laid directly on top of each other, and have created a three way point. My CDO has the best of me now!! Yikes
Please go over your entire plan. Make sure every bit of track connects without overlap or gaps. Use the track planning tool to generate a plan that can actually be built. How will you know? The tracks join. While you can "force it" when confronted by actual track, the best approach is to eliminate these dilemmas before you pick up a single piece of track.
Bee
-
Hi ThreeLink
You asked about the open work below the solebar.
The answer is yes, it obscures, the Hanazono is a rectangular block that sits between the wheels. If you go back a post or two, I show the Hanazono without the tender. Here is a view of the tender I used for test
Pay no attention to the wire, that was just to test current draw during axle alignment. I attempted to take a square on, track level image of the tender. The Hanazono can be seen, but you have to look mighty hard, as it is black. From a normal viewing angle, it is mostly invisible. I can live with this, but I respect that your opinion may differ.
I went and measured the coal bin area. Treating it as a rectangular cavity, I get 14.9mm × 11.9mm × 23.9 mm or 4.238 cm³.
Density of Lead is 11.29 grams/cm³, so if I was to fill the cavity with a (very unrealistic) rectangular block, it would be 47.8 grams. Of course, if I hack away at the lead, I can create a more realistic shape and glue on a layer of coal. Say 30 grams total.
I could use other elements. I will of course avoid radioactive or toxic materials.
Osmium is 22.6 grams/cm³ but is ~ $38/gram. Too expensive.
Tungsten is 19.35 grams/cm³ and only ~$1/gram. Unfortunately, very difficult to cut. I do have a large diamond chop saw which would work but would make a lot of tungsten dust and therefore waste. Maybe.
Tantalum is 16.65 grams/cm³ and is ~$2/gram. Tantalum can be machined, unlike Tungsten.
In the end, I have to consider how many carriages/wagons I intend to haul and what the prototype offers. There is this period image of Planet, which appears in Walker, 1831. Note the horizontal cylinders under the smokebox. This image has been stolen and redrawn many times with many variations, but this is the grand daddy of them all. The original depiction. I get 10 flat wagons with freight.
Do I need 66 grams, so that I can haul 27 wagons? Probably not.
Bee
-
Has everyone fallen out with me?
Matthew
Absolutely not! Not at all.
After quite a bit of conversation, it became quite clear that the biggest assist you needed was understanding polarity. Quite a few spotted this. Understand that we are not judging you as a person, we are simply assessing technical level so as to provide the best help that will be most meaningful to you!
You were left with a simple puzzle in polarity. Some DPDT switches and a simple straight track. This puzzle, WeyMatt, will absolutely help you directly to the next level of understanding.
We await your solution and diagrams. Patiently and with hope that you can solve it. We have confidence that you can solve it. I would suggest to you that you try to solve it. Why? Because you need to understand polarity to make your layout work.
Bee
-
Hi ThreeLink
You asked about Hanazono motor bogies and hauling power.
Today, I did the testing. Wow!
I installed the tender body onto the bogie such that the axles were NOT touching the bearing boxes. There is a screw attachment point on top of the Hanazono bogie, so the tender body was firmly fixed in place. I tested the assembly on its back, still drew the same current as before. This guaranteed that the axles weren't rubbing.
I weighed the assembly, 27 grams. I started out with 33 grams of weight, for a total of 60 grams.
Using this, I was easily able to haul all of my modern era 1 stock, to wit: 15 carriages/wagons. The current barely budged!
So I grabbed the three carriages in R796, the 1980s Rocket consist, now with fine scale pegs. No issues adding them! Still barely a murmur in additional current. Mind, (15+3) is more than any one of the Hornby locomotives can pull. 1980s Rocket hauls the three 1980s carriages and that is it. Lion can pull 15 modern, but needs double head help from modern 2020 Rocket.
The challenge was laid. I pulled out the 9 Accurascale Chaldrons. Lion can NOT pull 9 Chaldrons by themselves without assistance. Finally, I saw the Hanazono struggle. But it was all wheel slip.
I added another 33 grams, now 93 grams total for the tender. The Hanazono pulled all 27 carriages / wagons without real issue. The current was in the 0.160 amps region. Above ideal, but certainly not dangerous.
In an effort to see if I could push the current up to 0.200 amps (40% of stall current), I kept increasing the velocity. Eventually, it was flying around the layout, hovering around 0.190 amps. Just a pinch more I thought.
The weight fell out of the tender, and there was a horrible train wreck. No damages incurred but it was spectacular!!
So 27 carriages / wagons at warp speed could not get me to 40% of stall.
This is by far my strongest puller.
Next to determine the volume of lead for 66 grams and see if I can get it under a coal load.
I recommend the Hanazono, without reservations.
Cheers
Bee
EDIT: Best crawler of the lot as well. Slower and more stable at slow speed.
-
With the photos approved, I do believe they are the same board.
R0 and C1 are the RC network to suppress noise, the RC network that appears on many a model. Not sure what L2 & L3 are.
Is the black on the back of your board an applied material? That's where the Peters Spares board has the nomenclature.
Bee
Edit: are L2 & L3 resistors for Led 2 and Led 3?
-
Brew Man
Does your board look like this X7507 from Peters Spares?
Bee
-
Excellent!
For others with X7507, a searchable record is created.
Thank you Brew Man!
Bee
-
Referencing Teditor's model number, we have X7507 PCB holder and blanking plug.
Bee
-
Perhaps we can trace it a different way.
Does it have a Hornby spare parts number?
Bee
-
My apologies Brew Man. I will mark this down to the great aluminum / aluminium debate!
Your PCB board will have printed text on it. Some of that text will be for manufacture, chip orientations and the like. There will be some text which identifies the board, and may include a revision number, etc. The name of the board, as used by Hornby, for internal purposes. It will simply be a string of characters which have no other purpose.
Bee
-
Hi Richard
For posterity, would you mind detailing what was hauled in the "Signal Works Engineer, Colchester" wagon?
Typical consist?
Locomotive used?
Purpose?
Etc?
Whilst this isn't my era, it occurs to me that this is a rare opportunity for Enthusiasts who want to mirror prototype practice.
If you wouldn't mind sir?
Thanks
Bee
-
Hi Brew Man
Firstly, permit me to retract the commonality remark and insert a "it was the identical problem" statement.
PCB boards typically have nomenclature on them which serve to identify them. Given we now have two PCBs with this issue, I would urge you to post up that nomenclature for others who might experience the same issue.
And yes please, Teditor, the nomenclature on your PCB as well.
Bee
-
My results so far in the Hanazono bogie haul test.
The first result is to determine stall current. Stall current happens when the rotor of the motor no longer turns but draws current. I approached this in two ways.
Firstly, I simply measured the resistance of the motor. 24 ohms. The design voltage is 12 volts (DC). Therefore, stall current by this method is ½ amp.
Secondly, I applied a very low voltage to the motor, insufficient to get the rotor to turn. 0.407 volts. This was measured across the solder tags, in parallel with the motor under test. Next, I measured the current draw in series, without touching the position of the rotor. 0.018 amps. Using ohms law, I find the resistance to be 22.6 ohms and, when used at rated voltage of 12 volts, the stall current will be 0.530 amps.
Those results are close enough to be a meaningful result. I will use the more conservative ½ amp for stall current.
This will establish some limits as I add weight and perform the haulage test. I never want to exceed 0.250 amps continuous current, as this will lead directly to thermal failure. 0.200 amps continuous is acceptable but will shorten motor life. Ideal would be 0.125 amps continuous.
I ran the Hanazono motor bogie suspended in air, wheels up, such that the bearing surfaces, such as they are, were engaged as if the bogie was sitting on track. In forward, the motor drew 0.083 amps on average. In reverse, the motor drew between 0.096 and 0.120 amps, randomly. [Edit: not 0.96 amps!!! Hahaha] It was very inconsistent. Still, within ideal bounds, so I moved the wheels in both directions for ~20 minutes each.
Next step will be to service and lubricate. I will then test its ability to get around track while monitoring current. Add weights under self haul test, monitoring current, and then and only then, propel some carriages!
Bee
-
Hi RDS
Now that I understand the issue is I can easily avoid it. Its at my end and can control the rotation quite readily.
Thank you kindly for the offer to rotate my image. I've simply deleted the strangely rotated image and let the corrected one stand. No sense in making extra work for you gentlemen! Difficult enough as it is.
Bee
-
Hello Richard 👋
The artwork on the model is likely because the wagon at Tamar Belle still retains your signature paintwork.
If so, the mystery is solved.
Bee
-
I have no idea why the image would be rotated, but I did notice this occurred previously.
I've processed the image, to see if I can correct the issue.
Hopefully this appears correctly. If it does, I can insure I won't get this issue again.
Apologies for the extra work mods.
Bee
-
Hi Rana 👋.
You have read my mind! Ha!
I've gone for Hanazono motor bogies, with spoke wheels.
Here is an image, comparing some 'generation three' tenders with the Hornby Lion tender.
[EDIT: corrected image below.]
The tender in back is installed on the top of a bogie, whereas the tender in front is not. The Hanazono motor bogie is displayed.
Will they pull or push much? Welp, they can certainly haul themselves around. I will try to propel a few carriages and report back.
Bee
Planning Planet
in General Discussion
Posted
As I pondered loading the tender so as to get better tractive effort, I have slowly come to the conclusion I may only get ½ the volume filled with lead or under 23 grams. The practical nature of installing exotic materials makes them unlikely. Dejected, I tabled the issue.
I was having a play with my new locomotive, Tiger. It runs well. I tried to double head it, and that is when the penny dropped. Why not double head Planet?
I've artfully(?) dressed up a locomotive as a tender. Planet, as I have currently envisioned, is a tender drive system. This depends on the friction between Planet's wheels and the rails to drive the oscillating handles. Hands up if you have ever seen a steam locomotive skating along in front of a tender drive.
The penny? Put a DC motor into Planet and now I've effectively double headed the system. Locomotive #1 would be Planet, with an onboard motor. Locomotive #2 is Planet's tender. BING!!
Okay, so what motor? How will I effectively speed match Planet's motor and 20mm wheels to the Hanazono motor and 10.5mm wheels. The smart lads know the answer, but I did not. Off I went on a madcap tour of small DC motors. This was nothing but a fools errand. The voltage to speed and speed torque curves are not published.
And then the other penny dropped. What motor matches a Hanazono motor? A Hanazono motor. The characteristics of any one sample Hanazono to any other Hanazono will have only tiny differences.
But will it fit? Rectangular 10mm×13mm. ~25mm long, including one worm. ~29mm long if both worms are there. The short answer is yes, it will fit!! Exciting!
But what about the wheel size difference? Both Hanazono motors will have near identical velocity over the voltage range. A simple gear ratio change will suffice to make the larger wheel rotate slower than the small wheel. The forward linear travel, assuming no wheel slip, is a function of circumference and then gear ratio. Match them to each other by changing the gear ratio.
Viola!
Bee
Note: I've seen some excellent motors which I may take advantage of in the future. Hanazono motors are expensive because they come with gears, drive train and wheels. A full kit. That isn't ideal.