What About The Bee

Under the assumption you want to keep them You could get the pipes off a similar model. Flying Scotsman has been in production for quite some time. Get a damaged FS and move the pipework over. You could make some. Our hobby is more than just purchasing a locomotive and turning it on. Get busy modeling! The satisfaction of making your own will be very rewarding, I promise you. Copper wire is the way to go. Accept that your FS will never have pipework. The lads at the engineworks had a bad day and forgot to install them. Drunken lot that they are 😉 Tell Hornby that you expect some material compensation for their errant practices. Under the assumption that you find this unacceptable Simply return them. Hornby have admitted fault. You will not have the FS you wanted. Maybe another day or another model. Bee

Hello Gary I am a very long term eBay participant. I've both bought and sold some very high value items, since before the turn of the millennia. I've also experienced some of the not so pleasnt surprises. Here is what you do. (1) Put the seller on notice. write to the seller. Be polite. Use the words "material mistepresentation" "hidden damage". Explain that you know your rights under the ebay system. Tell the seller there is a time limit under that system. (2) you do have 30 days [last I looked it up] to dispute an item (3) you may avail yourself of the 'Disputes' service. When in this situation, I tell the vendor I will open a dispute on the 27th day. eBay typically sides with the buyer. Vendors know this and this threat is usually enough to get them to settle. (4) whilst it may not provide much satisfaction, leaving a negative feedback will cost a vendor money in the long term, as higher fees are charged to those with less than stellar feedback. (5) follow up persistently and always remain polite. Use the eBay contact system, as this becomes a record that eBay will use to evaluate the situation. I typically just settle for a partial refund. Most vendors prefer this as well, since their reputation is maintained and will not be receiving back an item that, for want of better words, 'got damaged in the post'. ~~~~~~ Your pictures did not come through, so I cannot see the damage. Perhaps try again? Bee

And if Hornby will not sell you the models you want, at the price you can afford, that is somehow Hornby's fault. Example: I've always had a fascination with the South Pole and Shackleton. I want to go to the South Pole. When I looked into it, the flight was $30,000. They fly you there, you get to walk around for 4 to 6 hours and they fly you back. No overnight stays, period. But I could not afford that and now, decades on, the flight is likely much more expensive. Is that somehow the flight operator's failure? Should they not give me that adventure for $2500? That's all I am willing to pay. Not a penny more! Don't they know I deserve this? At my price? Costs be disregarded, it is my right!! Spot on AndyMac Bee

In translating Armengaud's fabulous 2 dimensional drawings into a 3 dimensional CAD model, I firmly decided on two changes. The first is that the Armengaud drawings are of a Planet-class locomotive, intended for France. Not Planet, a Planet-class locomotive. It is a Left Hand Drive locomotive. That is, the engine men drive it from the left hand side of the plate, as they faced forward. This, I cannot abide. Planet, LMR#9, was a Right Hand Drive. It is relatively straight forward to flip the Armengaud image over, making it a mirror image. The back head and controls will be a mirror image of Armengaud. The second major deviation is that Armengaud shows the forward suspension (spring assembly) under the frame. Yet Robert Stephenson and Co show the front suspension over the frame [red arrow]. The existing Planet reproduction also has the front suspension over the frame. So over the frame it shall be, in contravention to Armengaud. I did follow Armengaud, simply leaving off the bits that supported the spring under the frame. All was wonderful until I placed the forward spring assembly into position. The blue riding rod, under the spring, goes through the wooden sandwich frame via a hole in the wood. Here is the general arrangement. I was immediately struck by the futility of what I had drawn. That seemingly meaningless segment across the gap has a purpose! [Red arrows] As drawn, the blue rod can take an agle from the vertical. The bottom of the riding rod would then move dramatically over to the side. Causing major force to be applied to the horn guides from the axle box being forced to the side. Premature wear and probable suspension failure would result from that sideways force. Oh no!! That meaningless segment across the gap is support for a block, with another through hole. This keeps the linear travel of the end of the rod limited and restricts any sideways force to a minimum. It is present on the reproduction Planet, but is incredibly hard to see, being a black object, inside another black object, without perfect illumination. We can, however, see the bolts that hold the block in place! The Road Map Ahead With the front spring assembly finished, I just have some minor cleanup and the chassis is complete. The first major component will have that nice check mark next to it. Next up is the OO drive assembly. The motor and gears, with the intended oscillating handles. Drawn in OO as OO, to speed match the tender. This should prove quite interesting (well, to me anyway!). The second major assembly. Then, the drive assembly and the scaled chassis will be married, the third major step. The Armengaud Chassis and the OO drive will be made into one. The last major step will be the shell to fit over the lot. With this, the design shall be complete!! Hooray! Of course, then the real fun begins, when Shapeways tells me that none of it can be built and nothing fits as intended! Bee

In a way, I've already been through this, albeit for a different hobby. I had grown bored with the hobby, yet I had several thousands invested in the bits and bobs. It sat, idle for many years. I finally just placed all the bits on eBay, individually. It was a monumental effort, as each item needed a description. Each item would need be sent to the correct winning bidder. I did all the work beforehand and then, listed all in sequence, with the ending to happen in sequence, just minutes apart. I set my starting no reserve price at one dollar. Let it go!! Now bidders after they examine one of your listings, check the others. This is why it all had to go at once. To create the frenzy! They see one, and want more! I did well. Got most of my cash back for investment in other hobbies. If the items are to go, Son Of Triangman, then let them go. Bee

Hello RT FreeCAD documentation says that an STL file can be imported and subsequently converted to a 3D body. From a 3D body, a scale can be done, zero issues. I did not attempt to convert the STL file you wanted, as the site demands you "sign up" before downloading. No, thank you, I will not sign up! If we want models that are not produced RTR, then 3D printing is the best option. As any engineer will tell you, it is the control of the model which is important, maybe more so than the means to produce it. FreeCAD offers you absolute control over the software, it resides on your computer. The models also reside on your computer. Nothing can ever be placed beyond a paywall. The other packages can easily hold all your intellectual property ransom. No thank you! Whilst FreeCAD is quite powerful, it also has a few drawbacks. Firstly, its a bit clunky. The interface isn't obvious. Example: Scaling. In order to scale an object to OO, you need to divide by 76.2, yet FreeCAD won't let you do that until you set a preference in the Draft toolbox. Why? Because. I finally had to Google it and experiment. I will happily walk you through this non obvious step. FreeCAD has a steep learning curve. Its only now, a few months in, that I am starting to understand. Is it worth it? Absolutely. The next major step in OO Planet is the chassis and drive train, to include those oscillating handles. Those will be drawn 1:1 at OO. Now, I have no idea if it will actually work, but I will make a valiant attempt! Cheers Bee

Hello RT Here is a straightforward scaling example. Planet's footplate, full size and scaled. All in one image! Bee

Hi RT FreeCAD does direct scaling of parts. You could likely import the file directly and scale it to OO. My Planet project is drawn full scale. I've already tried to scale for OO, it works spectacularly. BTW, FreeCAD is free! Hello 81F That model does look good. I suspect the hopper will tip? Bee

Hopefully, JJ will be along with the lights he used. JJ used multicolored lights to generate quite realistic "time of day" videos. You may see it here Bee

This is a two part post about Planet. First, the current state of the CAD model, which shows those parts which I intend to be on my OO Planet. Second, I investigate the rear axle, which was notoriously prone to breaking. Current State of CAD The primary focus since the last update has been the rear axle and how it is connected to the frame. The wheels and nominal axles were sketched. As commercially available components will be used for these, no details are needed. Every effort was made to capture detail for the the rear axle spring assemblies and axle boxes. These are highly visible components. The axle boxes are captured in all four corners by the wheel frames (yellow). The travel of the axle box is thereby constrained to be vertical, while all four ends of the wheel plates are rigidly tied together by the load transfer link (green) at the bottom. At the top of the axle box is the oil well, for the total loss lubrication system. There are two tiny holes leading from the well to the bearing, but this will be lost when I go to OO, so it is not represented. The well should be visible, and therefore is represented. The spring assembly (blue) and riding rod go thru the wood part of the sandwich frame. The spring assembly was a ridiculously difficult part to create in CAD. Each leaf at a different radius and progressive arc length, with an elliptical shaped end, at the angle of the terminus of the leaf. I think the effort worth it. It is a highly visible component and will absolutely draw the eye in. Next up will be the front axle spring assembly, as we can see in this image of the reproduction Planet. Note that the builders of the reproduction likely used genuine spring steel for the leaf springs, not wrought iron, and thus required far less material than Stephenson. Stephenson's Fragile Axle When Stephenson went from outside pistons to inside pistons (Rocket-Class to Planet-Class) the plain driving axle was changed to a crank axle. Given the state of metallurgy and machining in the 1830s, it is no wonder that these axles were prone to fracturing. There were also other reasons for breakage, as you will see. Stephenson, in response to this problem, added several other axle supports, such that when the axle fractured, the locomotive would still be supported. There are SIX, count them, SIX support bearings on the rear axle. The two outer bearings, green arrows, are shown in my CAD model. The yellow arrows point to a pair of bearings around the left crank, the red arrows point to the bearings around the right crank. These comprise part of an internal frame, running between the piston assembly and the firebox. Not only do these members support the rear axles via bearings, but also each crosshead. From this, we can infer that the breakage generally occurred at the cranks, leaving the wheels supported by the outside green/yellow and red/green bearing pairs. Stephenson's solution comes with knock on problems. All six bearing centerlines must be co-linear. Any imprecision in co-linearity will create an eccentric of that bearing. This will result in lots of friction as it wears in, just before the bearing wears out. All six bearings are free to move only in the vertical dimension, any other direction results in wear and stress. Further, the axis of rotation for the crank bearings must be parallel to the axle axis of rotation, otherwise stress will be placed on the crank as the driving rods twist left and right to account for a non-parallel seat. The rear axle is a large piece of metal. It is well over the track guage long, as the axles extend beyond the frames. To machine this object in a lathe, without causing axial deflection due to tool pressure, will be difficult, particularly near the center of the axle . Then, to turn each of the crank bearings, the part must be shifted in the lathe, once for each crank. Maintaining parallelism during these shifts will also be difficult. Overall, this is a very significant machining problem on a very large piece of stock. Even today, this represents a very large lathe. And now the cherry. Look at the axle boxes depicted in the CAD and in the Armengaud axle drawing. Axle motion, from side to side, is constrained by the rounded ends of the bearing seat. The axle, as shown by Armengaud, has rounded surfaces to match. By this, we can see that the axle cannot slide to the left or to the right. Each end of the axle is trapped. Each end of the axle has an independent spring. Therefore, each end of the axle can move vertically and do so independently. With one side up, and the other down, a triangle is formed. This, in effect, tries to lengthen the axle!!! Yikes! All the components along the axle are stressed. The weakest part of the axle are the cranks. As the axle is stretched, the stress will be concentrated right at the bend for the crank. Right where I think it breaks. Right where Stephenson tried to protect the system. For the Stephenson system to work, the entirety of the axle must move only vertically, whilst maintaining parallelism to the frame. Any angular deviation from parallel results in stress. Stress leads to breakage. Having inside pistons had benefits. A cranked axle is not one of them. Just my opinion of course, your mileage may differ. Bee

Is that your dog Alberto? Happy Easter! Bee

Hi Three Link Thank you for the compliment. I'm working very hard to keep the CAD in line with the Armengaud drawings. Details make a model pop, and since the lad doing the labor works for free, I shall have all the details. Wood has a low modulus of elasticity. Further, the material isn't homogeneous. It is certainly NOT an ideal material from an engineering standpoint. I'm not positive why Stephenson used sandwich frames, but they indubitably would bend and wear poorly. The side wooden frames have outside metal plates, creating the sandwich of the sandwich frames. The stiffness of a beam goes by the cube of the height and linearly by the width of a beam. The plates opposing the load rods are ~180mm high, only ~10mm thick. So yes, the sandwich frames clearly prevent the load rods from straightening out by that bowstring girder effect. The rod itself is ~1 inch diameter. That was my first real clue that something special was going on. A 1" rod, even in wrought iron, is very strong indeed. Perhaps Robert Stephenson wanted to reduce the cost of the frame by reducing material costs (solid wrought iron v sandwich frames). It is far easier to machine wood than wrought iron, perhaps it was a labor savings. Perhaps it was a weight savings, as George Stephenson established an upper limit on weight. Solid wrought iron would absolutely be far heavier than wood. I just never could understand why those rods were there, before I started this CAD model. Now, it is fairly clear. The load is transferred by them. Not exclusively, of course, the sandwich frames do contribute. Bee

Hi DRC I knew this would catch your eye, just as it caught mine. I saw that observation coach and was immediately captivated. The photograph was taken in late November, so we are 4 months on from the image. One of the fundamental lessons I am learning is that making an accurate model takes an eternity! I work on Planet nearly every day, for hours at a time. The progress seems glacially slow. Its all in the details, that is what makes the model pop. Details take time. I will never complain about how long Hornby takes, ever again! They are still orders of magnitude more swift than I. Bee

I encountered this image of the Coronation Coaches while on another search. I remembered this thread and thought to update for those who are interested. The coaches were in the Hornby booth at Warley, said the person who posted the image. They appear to be an engineering prototype of some sort. There is plenty of detail, just zoom in! Bee

Could this be Polly? http://www.hornbyguide.com/item_details.asp?itemid=451 Bee

Translating Armengaud's fabulous period drawings into CAD continues. A massive task, to be completed one tiny step at a time. I left off here last time with the boxed frame and the axle plates. Illustrated was the concept of the draw pin retainer, wrapped around the WOOD rear frame. How odd, I thought. Planet's tractive effort is applied through a wooden beam. But what is the tractive effort effort of a Planet class locomotive? The value reported ranges from as little as 1400 pounds up to 2000 pounds. Not a tremendous amount. ~30HP, far less than your automobile. The frictional load of carriage and wagons is known far more precisely and due to exhaustive empirical experiment by the LMR. 1/248 is almost entirely due to the primitive bearings and friction. One part in 248, for flat, straight track. In 1833, Penny wise magazine https://books.google.com/books?id=cqDfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA167 documents Planet drawing 80 tons at 12 to 14 mph [top right column]. This required a tractive effort of 695 pounds. The tractive effort calculation does not account for curves or inclines, both of which are on the LMR. 695 pounds, or even 2000, will not rupture wood, but there will be some bending! I decided to move on, and add the tie rods between the wheel plates and the frame. Here, I encountered yet one more oddity. The rear most bolt was huge! Why would they need that? Just above the bolt was the forward most pillar of the railing. Certainly, a bolt of the dimension shown (1" diameter) isn't required for a lightweight railing. The last bit of strange design was that the draw pin drops down through the footplate. Not only a tripping hazard, but also a nasty pinch point, as the load is taken up by Planet. Golly, none of this made any sense. And then the penny dropped. The draw pin goes thru the ¾" thick footplate. This transfers the load from the draw bar to the footplate. The foot plate is connected to the rear diagonal strut, green, via that enormous bolt (actually 2, one on either side), transferring the load to that rear diagonal strut. Transfer the load through the rear axle box link to the middle strut Transfer the load through the front axle box link to the front diagonal strut. And then on to the front beams via another massive bolt. As the Planet class wheels turn, they apply a forward vector of thrust through the side sandwich frames and thence to the front beams. This thrust is transferred, via that massive bolt, to the front diagonal strut. Where the load is also applied! Orange arrow points to draw pin hole. Much like the collar on a horse pulling a horse drawn carriage, Planet pulls its load from the front beam. The pull is transferred, via those diagonal struts, to the foot plate. Similarly, the load is applied to the footplate. A horse drawn carriage would have been much better understood in the 1830s. Now, not so much. A great sigh of relief, as I understand Planet's design. It finally makes sense. Those diagonal struts transfer the load. Who knew the footplate was such an integral component of a Planet's class design and not just a place to stand? A ¾" thick plate to stand on. Ha! Bee PS. I will no longer whinge about how long Hornby takes to produce a design. Surely their Mechanical Engineers are much, much faster than I. Yet the amount of detail to wade through is stupendous. It takes a very long time to properly construct a model!

On another project, I required casien glue. This isn't sold commercially anymore, but the Forest Products Laboratory (US Govt Agency) did preserve the recipe Off I went, and purchased the requisite chemicals. As this was a marine application, a small dose of copper chromate was required. This is to be added last. Imagine my surprise, upon adding the copper chromate to the pale grey glue, the entire mass turned bright purple!! Copper chromate is greenish. After drying, the glue eventually turned brown. There is little doubt in my mind, ThreeLink, that your green ballast is the result of a chemical reaction betwixt your glue and stone. Bee

Hello All I thought to give an update on this project, so as to keep motivation high. As I plod thru the Armengaud drawings, I am struck by the dimensional accuracy. I have found each pixel is 1.3 mm, this on an overall length of 5.056 meters. That is an astonishing 1 part in 3800+. Presented here is my CAD model. It is drawn 1:1, not 1:76.2, as the model will come after the full scale representation of Planet The sandwich frames are shown with the metal in purple, the wood in gray. The metal wraps around the corners and on the outside, is let into the front wood member. The front corner brackets tie the frames together. There should be rear corner brackets, but as these will be buried under the footplate, I saw no need to model them. Similarly, no effort will be made on internal boiler tubes, even though Armengaud shows those as well. The rear draw pin bracket is two parts, the outer member wraps around the rear frame, and is let into the wood on top. The front and rear plates are different in more than just height, to my great surprise! Modern standards would require commonality of design and therefore commonality of parts. Stephenson did not feel so constrained. In any event, all 8 plates are present and accurate to Armengaud. A dilemma presents itself. It occurs because the Planet Class was quite large and widespread over many railways. Armengaud shows the front springs BELOW the frame Yet the Stephenson drawing, used in the animations, shows the front springs ABOVE the frame. Finally, the replica shows the front springs ABOVE the frame. Above the frame they shall be. This is relatively easy to do and will be consistent with Stephenson. Bee

Hello Peter Your post motivated me to look at my points. I ordered Tiger within 15 minutes of Range Launch and have received it about the third week in February. My points were accurately credited and are available to "spend". It is extremely likely that Hornby run an update utility on the database, as I cannot believe it is done manually. It runs at an unknown update frequency. A periodic reconciliation. Like DRC says, it appears a bit random, so we can see that it is not every day. Give this a few days and check back. If not mistaken, you are the fellow who was also waiting on his membership kit. I do hope that you were able to confirm your membership as suggested. Fingers crossed that has been resolved. If I may, here is a bit of completely unsolicited old man advice, and who doesn't just adore that!!! This hobby runs a bit slowly, and Hornby epitomizes that statement. Their heart is in the right place, undoubtedly so. Your situation(s) will be sorted. Patience!! End of unsolicited advice. Please disregard at your whim!! Thanks! Bee

Hi DRC I seem to recall CAD images from Hornby on that 'drawbar'. If not mistaken, the drawbar contains all the electrical signals and power, eliminating those cable loops hanging down. Just the interconnecting loco and tender blocks. Is that the one? Bee

Hi ThreeLink 👋 With regards to the packing gland, or 'stuffing box', Armengaud is silent. In the image of Planet's cylinder, two packing gland cavities are shown. Both are at working boiler pressure. I added the colors for clarity. The red packing gland seals the piston rod. The green packing gland seals the rod which drives the slide valve. In neither case does Armengaud have letter references or other demarcation to indicate relevant associated text. You would think this of some interest, as the initial packing glands, developed by James Watt, himself, were in the 1760s, a mere 70 years before Planet. Yet Armengaud is silent on the gland itself Note the piston N. There appear to be two piston rings, I think we can see the split in the ring on the right. Piston rings are still used today in internal combustion engines. So this seal was understood I'm not sure where we can go further with the Planet's packing glands. If Stephenson could seal the piston rods and slide valve rods against working pressure, he would have little issue sealing the water interconnection between the tender and locomotive at atmospheric pressure. I poked around at historical packing glands, which brings us to James Watt, who used tallow and oil. I did see one reference to leather piston rings, lending absolute credence to rhino hide seals. Strings impregnated with tallow. All sorts of materials. But in the end, what Planet used on the LMR is currently out of my reach. I hope that helps! Bee

Hello Peter They take about 2 weeks to reply to emails, given the current volume. I know this is frustrating, but a bit of patience is required. The important bit is the member discount on purchases. In my view, that is the primary reason to join the membership. If that is valid, and I firmly expect that it will be, your membership is too! Check that by making a straw purchase. Confirm that the member discount was applied in 'my orders' under your account. Peace of mind obtained, cancel the straw purchase. Serenity is achieved. Bee

Hello Peter Please do contact Customer Service to address your specific concern. I know it seems silly, but Hornby does not monitor, nor respond to, posts on the HORNBY forum. Bee

Hi Topcat 👋 Please do inspect the drawing with the words "Linear Extension" prominently displayed. The pipe betwixt the two ball and sockets is actually two pipes, one inside the other. So the inside and outside pipes slide longitudinally with respect to each other. The gland packing is to the right, just before the right ball. As to canvas hoses, certainly that is possible. The vertical distance from the water level in the tender, down to the interconnection is a few feet. That would have linearly increased pressure with depth. If a canvas hose was used, it would likely leak like a sieve, draining the tender. Armengaud did not invent his connection from whole cloth. He drew something that did exist, albeit maybe not to exclusion of all other solutions. @ThreeLink After closer examination, I do think packing could be placed at the join line of the two piece socket. This would effectively seal the ball. Nothing definitive, just a thought. Bee

Hi ThreeLink 👋 I must admit that I do not speak or read French. In order to get the relevant text description, I use the plate number, figure and letter references to find likely candidates within the text of the book. I then use a photo translation tool which only permits a sentence or three at a time. It provides, at times, hilarious results. You raise the point of a hose. To our eyes, this is so obvious! A flexible conduit for water. Why not? For 1830s England, that would be a complete anachronism. That is, a water tight conduit, that was flexible, simply did not exist. Hancock and Macintosh, along with Goodyear, were in the process of developing the India Rubber patents. Gutta Percha was off in the future. Do not miss the 1887 advertisement: https://thegardenstrust.blog/2019/07/13/the-history-of-hosepipe/ So instead of an over engineered solution, the water interconnection appears to be a reasonable approach. The other thing which occurs to me is that Armengaud is simply showing off, ineffective hoses were used, but this seems quite unlikely to me. The linear extension has the standard packing gland, right hand side between the ball and socket joints. This would be the same type of packing gland used at the steam chest and piston rods, so it would be reasonably effective vis un-pressurized water. The socket, of the ball and socket, can be tightened down with the threaded rod and nuts present. I do not see any other means of making it water tight. No problem getting the parts to rotate relative to each other, Planet on one side, a full tender on the other. That will provide a large torque moment. As to the theorized return: we are in full agreement! It, again, is so obvious. Yet try as I might, I could not find one. I thought I had found it with the "squirt", but that connected to nothing AND the translation, whilst hilarious, eventually became clear. Not the return. I am left with either the pumps constantly pumping OR shutting the flow off with concomitant pump issues. In the first analysis, the boiler will get water beyond safety pressurization. The full power of Planet from the cross head forcing water into the boiler is an issue. Consider the extrema: it will drive the pressure in that vessel very high indeed. To the extent that it may stop the crosshead, damage the mechanism, damage the pump or destroy the boiler vessel. Perhaps this is why the primary shut off valves are on the tender. The fireman could maintain the correct water level via observation of the glass and adjustment of the valves. In the second analysis, once the water in the pump chamber is slightly reduced, it will not develop sufficient pressure to overcome the upper ball seat. That is, the water sloshes around but goes no where. The pump doesn't run dry, but is ineffective at driving water into the boiler. I would like to emphasize that this is just my understanding at this time. Further discovery and analysis awaits. The entirety of the Planet class locomotive drawn by Armengaud is very rich with detail. I'm just scratching the surface. I did think it interesting to bring forth, in light of the recent discussion of your model of the Penydarren locomotive. Your solution is correct! Bee