What About The Bee

Hello 81F That isn't a bad idea at all. The size and quantity of gears is concerning. I could create pulley sizes for a perfect speed match using a belt. The common complaint I hear is that the chuffs from the sound decoder do not match the wheel rotation. I have seen this myself in videos and it is disconcerting. Therefore, I want the handles to beat in perfect synchronization to the wheel rotation for my Planet. It is going to be a slow locomotive after all. The wheel axle and oscillating rod axle have coupled identical gears. Eccentrics on the oscillating rod axle will cause the handles to move. Keeping them tightly coupled is a must. But the velocity matching drive system need not be gears. Something to consider when I try merging all these major assemblies. Bee

Nice find LesXRN. Big Steam is always eye catching. Nothing bigger on UK rail than Beyer Garratt, as far as I know. Looking forward to the report of tractive effort! Bee

Hello Distant I happen to agree with you. The controller sold in train sets is NOT fit for purpose. Your experience is far from unique. Sticking with a DC controller is perfectly reasonable. I use Gaugemaster. They offer a simple controller known as the "GMC-Combi". This offers 1 amp DC, 0 to 12 volts. This will handle absolutely any modern locomotive. My modern Hornby locomotives draw less than ¼ amp when running at max speed, max load. It also can make your locomotives crawl, if that is your thing, although likely not your grandson's thing 🙂. The benefits of a new controller should be duck soup obvious. No safety issues for the grandson. Zero problems, zero worries. If it goes wrong, Gaugemaster stands behind the product. Sure, you will pay a pinch more than for an older, used controller. That extra money buys total peace of mind. Did I mention safety? I really should... Bee

Hello Les Divide and conquer. Remove and replace. Trial various scenarios, testing for the faulty component. Example: is the decoder bad? Replace the existing decoder with a known good decoder. Does the problem vanish? Example: is the motor done? Lift the motor from the chassis and command motion. Does the motor spin? Example: is the mechanism binding, preventing motor rotation? With the motor out, try moving the wheels. Do the wheels rotate freely? In any of these scenarios, power the motor only for the briefest of time, so as to prevent damage to the coils. There are many tests to perform. Put on your troubleshooting hat! Good luck! Bee

Hello Rana Excellent questions. One of them I am still studying, the other I have a direct answer. As to a 3D printed gear box frame, that is a definite yes. Once all the components are resolved and I have a firm, complete mechanical solution, the gear box frame will be resolved. I took extra care in the development of the gears and axles to insure that they didn't interfere with each other. I do want sleeved, metal on metal bearing surfaces for a low Coefficient of Friction. When it comes to the electrical subsystem, I am far from decided. I will be using Rumford type axles and wheels. The axles are metal, as are the wheel rims. The body of the wheel is plastic, non conductive. The Rumford system has conductors you can add to bring power from the rim to the axle, but then only one wheel per axle can be in circuit. Two wheels with conductors on an axle is a dead short. So in essence one wheel on the forward axle and one wheel on the rear axle will pick up power. Yikes! The Hanazono motor boggie picks power from all four wheels, something I need to think about for Planet. I could bypass the Rumford system duplicating the Hanazono system. Linking them together electrically, like modern Hornby Rocket, Lion and or Tiger makes the world of sense. But all of this is just a jumble for now. It gets worse. I am currently using analog DC control. This is why I took extraordinary effort to speed match these two mechanically. DCC would permit a decoder, but lacking experience, I am uncertain if I can run two motors from one decoder or I need separate decoders with a unified pickup system. Why bother with a gear box speed match if I can run Planet and Tender as a two locomotive consist, speed matched electrically. Far from decided Rana. I'm still puzzling over it. Hopeful of some guidance from the more knowledgeable and clearly more experienced lads here. I have time before I need commit so I'm not in a panic. Bee

Hello Ionut There are 1000 ways to skin a cat. The cat usually likes none of them. For wheels: many will swear by cotton buds and isopropyl alcohol. For more aggressive cleaning or stubborn dirt, a fiber pen is warranted. You do NOT want to abrade the metal. You DO want to remove the deposits. So rub a dub dub with cotton buds until you see nothing come away on the bud. Then inspect the wheels. If they are clean of all deposits, mission accomplished. If not, rub some more. If stymied, resort to the fiber pen as a last resort. Avoid sharp metal tools, that will simply damage wheels. Bee

Hi David, You should have plenty of room for a worm and worm gear inside the locomotives. I had a look online. Brunel's engine shed / station does indeed still exist and I can see your model of it in the background. Well done you! Many period stations did have roofs like High Wycombe. The upper end of this expression had the roof in glass. When I first examined the wall, I thought to myself, what is Big Cheese on about. Its a wall. Zooming in reveals individual bricks picked out. The lintel brickwork is nicely illustrated. Details are what makes a model pop and the details here are abundant. Would you mind a peek at the backhead of your locomotives? From the footplate as pulling towards the Brunel station. If what I've seen so far is representative, then I am in for a treat Bee

Hello Andy 👋 Welcome to the forum! In my view, the answer you received is most uninformative. It does not say what you do get in R30090. You could trust the answer I received. It was explicit. The 1st Yellow Glass carriages we will receive are named, to wit Traveller and Huskisson. The Booth 1st Curtain Carriage seems to be getting an artwork change, per Hornby. But it is "not deleted", per Hornby. Why Hornby decided to show the artwork for R3809 and R3810, combined no less, is beyond my pay grade. 6 named 1st Yellow Glass Carriage are illustrated, you get none of those names. I was polite, but explained my consternation to them after I received my response. The web illustration change simply creates confusion and agitation. Other methods exist for indicating an artwork change to a proposed model. The method selected was less than ideal. If you find the answer I received reliable, then you are all set. If you are less than satisfied with the answer you received, then follow up with Hornby. I certainly will not tell you what to do, but I am also quite certain about what I would do, having received the answer you did. Bee

When last updated, Planet's chassis and footplate was complete. I indicated that the next phase would be the gear train, followed immediately by the oscillating handles. In prior posts, the tender, with a Hanazono motor boggie, proved to have fantastic tractive effort. Planet will have the Hanazono motor as well, because a Hanazono motor will match an identical Hanazono motor! So two motors will not only let Planet have all the steam engine motion, Planet and Tender together will be a fantastic puller. Herein is the first issue. The Hanazono motor boggie has 10.46 mm diameter wheels at the drum. Planet, with a properly scaled OO rear driving wheel, has 20 mm diameter wheels at the drum. I cannot simply place the 14 tooth worm gear that is driven by the Hanazono motor worm on Planet's axle. That would be entirely too fast. The Hanazono wheels at 10.46 mm diameter are 32.861 mm in circumference, Planet's wheels at 20 mm diameter are 62.831 mm in circumference. If the two axles spin at the same rotational speed, Planet will be 1.912 times faster than the tender, on linear rails. After a tremendous amount of playing around with gear trains, I have found a gear train which is very close indeed. In terms of one motor rotation, the Hanazono boggie turns the wheel axle 25.71429°, providing 2.347219 mm of linear travel. In terms of one motor rotation, my gear train turns the wheel axle 13.46939°, providing 2.350852 mm of linear travel. Planet will advance 0.003633 mm more for one motor turn than the Hanazono motor boggie tender. Planet will be pulling the tender, the tender will not be pushing Planet. If there is any interest, I will gladly explain the gear train, an intensely mathematical experience. I will say that I did enjoy it, quite the problem to crack! With the gear train mathematics resolved, I set about drawing all the gears and axles required. Here they are, presented in linear fashion. Yet without a Planet shell, there will not be a way to confirm that the gears do in fact fit inside the shell. Here is the crude shell, noting that a detailed shell will come much later. Of course, I must also include the Hanazono motor and worm. Presented here with the shell. The electric motor is simply too large to fit in the boiler. Yet standing up in the firebox is a very near fit. I could just extend the firebox by 1 mm to accomodate. In order to make them fit inside a shell, the gear train must fold up upon itself. Trigonometry to the rescue, each gear mesh pair is a polar coordinate system, with R fixed (radius gear a + radius gear b) and theta the only independent variable. Therefore, each polar coordinate system stacks on the previous polar coordinate system. And then the gears and axles are folded up, using the polar / cartesian coordinate transformations. The gears do modestly interfere with the top of the boiler shell. Lifting the shell by 1 mm eliminates the interference The gears sticking out of the bottom will be covered up by the inside frame members. The eccentrics will be mounted to the red axle, and the undercarriage eccentric rods should be quite visible to the casual observer. These will eventually drive the oscillating handles on the backhead. So the steam engine motion will be presented! Some self criticism. 1) A nominal involute gear mesh will transmit ~98% of the input torque. Yet the gear train illustrated here has 7 involute gear meshes. So 14% is the expected loss for a ball bearing system for the axles. Sleeved bushes are envisioned here. Expect double to triple losses, just to overcome the sliding friction. Perhaps as much as 42% loss in torque, just for the gear train. Hopefully less! 2) The oscillating handles and other pretty bits of the motion will add further frictional loses. Whilst unlikely, there is a non-zero chance that the entire system will present too much friction for the motor. Low probability, but not zero. If it stalls the motor, it can overheat, melt coil insulation and fail. I am reminded of the fantastic tractive effort of the Hanazono boggie, so fingers crossed on this topic. I have no way to calculate this. It will either work. Or not. 3) When the tooth count on an involute gear falls below 17, independent of the module size, the tooth becomes undercut and is weakened. 6 of my 11 gears have a tooth count below 17. This weakness is mitigated by the tiny torque output of the motor and my intention (for now) to use brass gears. Not only will metal gears present greater strength, but also add weight directly over the driving axle 4) The smoke box is entirely empty. This is an excellent place for a keep alive and / or a Bluetooth decoder. ~~~~ Close enough to consider it viable. Onward to the oscillating handles! Bee

Do these locomotives run, or are they static display models? I do admire your commitment to the entire system. It looks marvelous Bee

Hi Topcat The track system is a Walthers product. It is the 'power lock' system, developed by Life Like. When Life Like went out of business, Walthers absorbed that product line. Although Sam had trouble with the system, quite a few note the high reliability and better than rail joiner conductivity of power lock, on a long term basis. No personal experience with it, but thought to clarify. Bee

I have received an incredibly prompt response from Hornby Customer Care. I requested clarification on Friday, it is now Monday. Bing! Anyway, here is the answer ~~~ Hi there, Thank you for your email, I have spoke to my colleagues in the development team, and they have confirmed the following - QUESTION (1) : Is the Booth Carriage now formally deleted? It was last seen at Model Rail Scotland, in the Hornby area. Our model is based on the information we had at the time. The model will not be deleted. QUESTION (2) : Which 1st Yellow/Glass carriages are included in R30090 The Traveller & Huskinsson carriages are included in this set ~~~~~~ @LT&SR_NSE, You were exactly correct. I read the line "model based on information we had at the time" to mean a major update is coming to the Booth model, just as you suspected. I will never argue against fidelity. @96RAF, If you deem it worthy, please do pass on to Hornby the strangeness of the method of announcing better artwork for a model. Changing the images in R30090 to images of other models just resulted in customer confusion (me). Perhaps a better method may be in order! Now that this tempest in a teapot is over, thank you lads, for talking me off the ledge! Bee

This rod does appear bent inwards and is not a photo artifact

Thank you for the confirmation Anglia! My assessment was tentative. Bee

Hi DRC I do not own a 9F, nor will I ever. Swapping parts around may teach you something but is unlikely to solve the problem without understanding root cause. Instead of looking at the connecting rod shoulder bolts on one side, comparing between two axles, document all 8(?) connecting rod shoulder bolts on all 4 axles. That longish shoulder bolt on interior axles may be deliberate, and will be obvious when all the shoulder bolts are examined. Perhaps to allow radius 2 turns. The offending shoulder bolt may have a burr on the inside, that catches the rod. The offending shoulder bolt could be odd man out. The connecting rod may have a burr there. The problem may lay anywhere in that system. Resist the urge to just change something. I hope this helps. Bee

Hello The Old Road 👋 I did a bit of poking around to see if I could find your answer. The closest I could come was this: HobbyKing had a 'discontinued' listing for R3736 [ https://hobbyking.com/en_us/hornby-railroad-oo-gauge-lner-a1-class-4-6-2-4472-flying-scotsman-with-tts-sound-era-3-dcc-fitted.html ] Within that listing, under "Product Description" the listing states "5 pole skew wound LOCO drive motor. Hope this helps! And welcome aboard the forum Bee

Thank you 96RAF. Appreciated! Bee

Hi LT&SR_NSE I am hopeful that you are correct. That this is some web page shuffle while Hornby corrects a detail. Fingers crossed. The Booth 1st Curtain Carriage was my entire reason for that train pack. The Huskisson 1st Yellow carriage was a nice bonus. The other two components (Rocket & Traveller) were mostly irrelevant and were likely destined for modification. I really wanted that Booth Carriage! The email to Customer Care is away. Nothing like a curmudgeon with a keyboard 😉. If I do not hear back within a few weeks, I will bother Simon. I think it best to follow correct procedure here. Customer Care first. As to artwork? Not only do I record prices, changes, schedule updates, etc; I also capture any artwork. Top, the Booth Carriage from the web page before change. Bottom, the Booth Carriage at Model Rail Scotland. Bee

I check the status of my pre-orders periodically, so as to keep informed and be aware. Today, I checked and note that R30090 has been updated. This was the set to include the 1st Class Curtain Carriage illustrated in Henry Booth's 1830 book. The update is to delete the Booth Curtain Carriage, and replace it with a 1st Glass/Yellow Carriage. Not only that, but the named carriages Traveller and Huskisson are also deleted. I had previously confirmed with Hornby Customer Care that those two particular carriages would be present. I have carefully reviewed each image presented in the revised listing. You either get the carriages included in R3809 (Times, Experience and Despatch) or R3810 (Globe, Renown and Wellington). That is, Hornby have clearly used old stock images and what will be provided is completely uncertain. Hornby simply presents both sets of images without further specification as to content of R30090. I had previously canceled R40371, Huskisson and two blue 3rd carriages, upon Hornby written confirmation that Huskisson would be in R30090. Do I re-issue that pre-order? I will certainly be writing to Hornby Customer Care. Probably will also be canceling my pre-order for R30090. You may recall discussions re customer reliance on images and how the only way to be sure was to get confirmation via Customer Care. Roger that. So I did. Worthless. If I wasn't paying attention, I may not have noticed this gross substitution, well after written confirmation of contents. I will update this post when I receive update from Hornby Bee

Very nice indeed! Bee

Touch the cradle.... Touch the locomotive... Contaminant transfer complete. Yes, I worry too much. Bee

The eBay post did state that the directions were the photos in the image. Looked straightforward in any event. The advert was specific that you only get one size jaw or the other, but not both. That's fairly nice of the seller to give you both. If it were me, I'd give those parts a good clean before they come close to my locos. No telling if there is something from process that could transfer, smudging paintwork. Probably not necessary.... Bee

Hi ThreeLink Taking a break from the gear train, I thought to review the period images of Planet and the planet-class locomotives I know of. The first appears in Walker An Accurate Description of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway... 1831. This is drawn by Issac Shaw, a known good first hand observer. He shows us 5 links and a hook on center. It is unclear if this is Planet or merely a planet-class. The only other image that shows the front chain is Armengaud. This is definitively a 3 link chain. The locomotive illustrated is La Jackson, a planet-class locomotive. So there we have it. One type each. A 3 link and 5 link. No other image, that I know of, bothers to include the chain. Austen would have us believe there wasn't even a buffer beam, let alone a front chain! Bee

Hi Al I had a look at the assembly. One thought I had was to set the articulated cradle to hold your nominal foam cradle. Full support at the length of the foam, the locomotive presented at the angle of articulation. I look forward to your review Bee

I should hasten to add: Pressure angle. The pressure angle if the teeth must also match. There would be little reason to change the pressure angle from the nominal 20°, so I am working under the assumption that both gears are at 20°. It is quite possible that one company or the other may have used a different angle. Common cutters for involute teeth include 14½° pressure angle. I do apologize for not including this earlier, yet it is a refinement to the basic module size. Bee