What About The Bee

As I plod through reproducing Planet in CAD, for my intended model, I study the Armengaud images to see how the parts interrelate. Along the way, I have noticed how water is introduced into Planet's boiler, even though Planet's boiler is under pressure. While this detail is extremely unlikely to migrate into my model, I think it interesting. We begin at Park Side. Park Side was the approximate halfway point between Liverpool and Manchester. The locomotives took on fuel and water here. The LMR detail appears in Colyer, and shows the water crane in situ, along with a Planet Class locomotive. This does not offer us many details, but thankfully, Armengaud shows us the complete workings. The main valve is located below grade, likely to keep it from freezing. When open, water flows up the empty column and into the boom which can rotate. At the top is a pull chain valve, weighted such that it is normally closed. When the chain is pulled, the valve is opened and water can flow in the boom to the tender. On the top of the tender, we can observe two rotary handles. These handles are on Hornby's Lion and Tiger tenders . I've also seen the video of the replicas, wherein the enginemen turn those handles. I did not understand, at the time, what they did. I do now. These are connected to two valves, located in the base of the tender When the valves are open, water can flow from the tender. The interconnection between the tender and locomotive is quite interesting. Here is the view of the device in situ, hanging from a chain off of the footplate. And here is the cut away. The middle region, at B', is a linear extension, that is, one tube slides inside of another. To compensate for angular deflection, there are two ball and socket connections at either end of the linear extension. This allows Planet to move relative to the tender, without hoses! Note that there are two of these, one on either side of the footplate Fantastic, the water is now onboard Planet, still at atmospheric pressure. The water is directed to cross head pumps. There are two, one on each crosshead Armengaud provides us with a cut away detail of the internal workings of the pump. When the pump piston retracts, negative pressure is created in chamber, lifting the lower ball from it's seat, drawing water up. The ball, contained in its cage, re-seats due to gravity. The pump drives forward, creating pressure in the chamber. When the pressure in the chamber is greater than the pressure in the boiler, the upper ball lifts from its seat, and water flows into the boiler. Viola! Water is injected into the boiler. A couple of details. 1) The tiny upright pipe at the end of the pump is noted to be for the enginemen to check that the pump is pumping! When the valve there is opened, water will come out of the small pipe like a squirt gun, completely visible to the enginemen. Proof the pump is working. 2) Why all the duplication? When water is not present at the top of the firebox, the boiler can fail. Insuring the water remains at that level means a functional pump. Without it, loco go boom. Recall that the enginemen have a way to insure a pump is actually pumping. So two pumps implies that the designers were very concerned about pump failure. 3) What if the boiler is full? How to stop the pumps? The pump is hard connected to the crosshead. It is in motion when Planet is in motion. It cannot be stopped. What can be stopped is the flow of water. The valves in the tender tanks can be closed individually.

Hi TVR 👋 I just went through that trying to compare the LMR to modern image. There does not appear to be one value. The numbers are all over the map. The minimum appears to be 3.5 meters, centered on the centerline of the track (1.75 meters from centerline). But higher speeds demand higher numbers. I have seen numbers as high as 5 meters. Bee

Hello Simon 👋 Welcome The track gauge is a fairly critical item. Too wide, and the wheels fall in, leading to derailment. Too narrow, and the wheels ride up, leading to derailment. This Hornby Railway Collectors Association website claims that the gauge varied a bit, but was 32 mm. https://www.hrca.net/2-uncategorised/10-o-gauge-fact-sheet You would be well advised to create a tool to measure the inside distance, from rail to rail, that is 32 mm long. Go completely around your track and insure that the track gauge is correct. Antique track is also widely available and you may wish to simply replace the wonky track pieces with better. Bee

I am a big fan of competitive spirit. Firstly, the prototypes are there. These prototypes are available to all and sundry. No company has the exclusive rights to a 9F or a Deltic. Yes, certain locomotives are covered under copyright, like Thomas, but those are exceptions, not the rule. Competition benefits the Enthusiast, as every company will try to out do the others. Be it price, accuracy, detail or what have you, competition is good for us. If a company wants to compete for business, they would do well to understand the competitions offerings. In detail. Specifically what is good about them and how to do better. So if Accurascale "muscles in" on Hornby, or Hornby "muscles in" on Rapido, I say.... LET THE GAMES BEGIN! Bee

Hi RallyMatt 👋 A big part of the hobby for me is research. I want to run models, yet I want to run them correctly! For me, this is a gem of detail. The period drawings show a double track mainline, and now I know the proper spacing. I do agree, the models coming out are wonderful. I'd still be researching, due to my great curiosity about the LMR, but running no models without Hornby and Accurascale. Bee

Whilst researching Planet, I encountered a set of mechanical drawings, drawn by authors who also wrote a book, among other tomes, on mechanical drawings! From this, I can infer drawing accuracy in the plates you are about to see. The Planet class drawings are simply fabulous. More details than I can shake a stick at. Apparently, they were used to construct the Planet replica that steams today. More on those drawings at another time. Armengaud et Armengaud, L'Industrie des Chemins de Fer, 1839. Yes, in French. Plates 22 and 23 are very interesting on the topic of curtains. Exterior and Undercarriage Exterior end views and cut away interior These drawings show an "Ordinary Wagon for Travelers". We can be quite sure that this is an early carriage, as there is nothing other than dumb buffers in the undercarriage. The text associated with this carriage indicates it was used on the railway between St. Germain and Versailles. Note the steps. They are the exact steps that appear on Hornby LMR stock. The text does state that the roof has a metal sheath over wood. The upper sides of the carriage are composed of "curtains" and "hangings". Those were the exact words used, albeit in French. The text does not specify what they are made of. Now I can not state what the curtains are made of, but the bottom hem and the drape of those curtains is very suggestive. Click on the image and select "view image". Then zoom in for a very close inspection. What do you think these curtains are made of? Bee

Here is generation 2 of my buffer adapter. The middle member has the wood grain running side to side, with the front plates and back plate grain running vertically. The metal threaded rod is installed and bolted. A bit of 242 Locktite to keep it secure. This is far and away more robust than generation 1. I did have a problem with the #61 drill bits for the thru hole. My drill press could not grip the tiny diameter, so I was forced to use a hand drill. That's never as precise as a drill press, so the nuts aren't in a line, they are a bit wonky. Not noticeable at 3 feet. The nuts, being a real three dimensional part, really pop on the buffer adapter. The rosewood grain really shows. I may add a touch of varnish to bring out the color Bee

Hi 96RAF Thank you kindly for the suggestion. I chose FreeCAD for lots of reasons, including the ones you mention. Lots of online tutorials. Rich community. It also has a vast array of real CAD tools and it it is parameter driven. An example of this is the counter bore radius. I looked in my shop, and could only find a 0.104" flat bottom drill, nothing smaller. Instead of buying another flat bottom drill at the radius I designed, I dialed in the radius of the new drill. This was a problem, as the counterbores now intersected, a no no. So I changed the 2 parameters that represented the axes of the 4 holes....and all the parts, threaded rods, nuts, etc, all adjusted. I did not change the dimension on every part individually, I changed the parameter those dimensions were linked to. Viola! I do suppose this is like Scarm v AnyRail, or any other track planning tool. Its a choice. Bee

Hi ThreeLink 👋 Truth be told, I find making kit is far and away more impressive than purchasing it. Respect! Bee

In consideration that both the utility wagons and flat bed wagons were general purpose, it is entirely possible that broken down wagons were hauled away in this fashion. Maybe not 3 high! Bee

Hi JJ 👋 I certainly did not expect the stacked up wagons! That was a bit of fun. Did Tiger meet with your approval? You never did say if you liked Tiger, or not. Bee

Hi Tony57 👋 I am located in the US, but an LMR Enthusiast. So OO for me! What Hornby is to OO in the UK, Lionel Trains is to O in the US. Either company dominates their respective market. Sure, there are other companies, but the 800 gorilla in the room is Hornby in the UK, and Lionel in the US. I've posted this information before, but it bears repeating. If you want the top of the line Lionel locomotive, you are in the $2000 range. Add in rolling stock and, well, gasp. One train (loco & rolling stock combined) had an overall price of $4500 (£3700). I, for one, do not consider Hornby to be expensive in a comparative sense. But further, what one person considers an inexpensive price and another person expensive, for the same item is this: personal station in life, personal budget. Example: A sheik from Saudia Arabia is worth billions. He would not blink at purchasing multiple copies of the entire range. Its cheap. Example: a mudlark worth pennies. He would blink at the lowest priced item, far beyond his reach. Its expensive. Bee

While I do have some sympathy for James, it is tinged with a healthy dose of realism. With due respect to "record profits", those are in absolute dollars, not inflation adjusted dollars. To anyone who hasn't seen the accounting numbers on a project, the price of any item seems a mystery. Who pays for the Customer Representatives who answer your questions? Does Simon work for free? Did the shipping fee factor in to your numbers? How about debt service on business loans? The rent on the offices. The health insurance for office staff? How about Montana, does she work for free? The engineers? The manufacturing facility in China? The short answer is YOU. You pay for all of this, plus a return on investment for the shareholders. You pay for it in the price of a model. Unlike one youTube reviewer who states that the price of a model is somehow related to its size (?!? here's looking at you ST.), the roll up cost of a model is a business decision. It is up to the purchaser to decide if it is worth it. And within their budget. As to you James, may I suggest the second hand market. There are plenty of excellent videos showing repairs. The hobby is much, much more than buying a ready to run locomotive and turning the controller knob. Bee

Where to begin? I can sketch parts with a pencil and paper and then make them. However, this becomes highly ineffective as the part complexity increases. If I am to make Planet, with oscillating handles, it will require CAD. There are a few free CAD packages available. I selected FreeCAD 0.18. After a few tutorials, I decided that Tiger's front buffer adapter would be an interesting first challenge. Generation 1 worked to propel chaldrons in the banking test. Yet the part was fragile. On to generation 2. I acquired some threaded rod and nuts in the 0000-160 persuasion, so as to make the part more robust. Instead of pine, I will use rosewood, a tropical hardwood scrap from an earlier project. In FreeCAD, the rectangular blocks were fairly straightforward. The through holes and counter bores were slightly more challenging. The threaded rods were a difficult challenge. These were not constructed from a library. Rather, a rod (0.021" diameter) was extruded and external threads applied via a helix of the correct threads per inch (160) and subtractive pipe. The nuts were even more of a challenge. A hexagon was extruded. The chamfers on the top and bottom surfaces were applied, so as to relieve the corners. A thru hole, of the minor thread diameter (0.0128") was applied. Finally the internal threads were constructed using the helix process as above. And the threaded parts, with my index finger, for a sense of scale Bee

Hello Alberto Always a pleasure to see a locomotive on your layout! Bee

If you enjoy making things, then how could you not afford this? Be it a tree or a utility building. A locomotive or a signal tower. It matters not. An activity to keep the mind sharp and the fingers nimble. If the latest RTR bauble is within reach, so be it. If not, well, there is always something else. If the locomotive of your dreams is not RTR (cough Planet cough), then make it Bee

I was reading "Railway Magazine and the Annals of Science". The periodical from those early days is quite dreadful. Overly forced prose. Focus on railway financial returns and reports. Debates over junk science. Tests mired in lack of understanding the fundamentals of the science. Yet Issue XXXI, September 1838 has a pearl on page 208. The author discusses the "breadth of way" for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which is defined as the maximum width of a loaded carriage and the space allowance on either side! This is stated to be 9' 10" and is compared to other railways, considering the LMR to be quite narrow¹. The author further states for double track, the bridges and viaducts were twice this, and explicitly states 19' 8". Today, I would refer to this as the dynamic envelope. That is, the 3 dimensional envelope that the carriages occupy when in motion, to include swept path on curves and carriage wobble. The gauge on the LMR was 4' 8", which permits a diagram to be constructed, using a scale mechanical drawing of Planet's backplate and a drafting tool to set dimensions. The "breadth of way" is the green arrow, establishing 9' 10" Placing the rails dead center, red arrows, we have 2' 7", 4' 8" and 2' 7". The yellow arrow represents the double track figure of 19' 8" The Planet image was made larger and smaller, in proportion, until Planet's wheels were aligned with my "rails". And then the same for another Planet image. We now have a to scale image of LMR double track mainline! From this, I can also derive a center to center distance for the two tracks. ½ of 4' 8" (track 1 gauge) + ½ of 4' 8" (track 2 gauge) + 2' 7" (inside clearance track 1) + 2' 7" (inside clearance track 2) = 9' 10" 9' 10" therefore is centerline to centerline track separation. Divide through by 76.2, for OO. I get 1.549" (39.34 mm). I've carefully placed the centerlines 39.25 mm apart, with Lion and Tiger in position Now before you lads tell me about long coaches and overhang, permit me to emphasize that the vast, overwhelming bulk of Hornby LMR stock is 3" long. The carriages are tiny! In fact, there are only two carriages which would be longer. The first is the log wagon Not shown are the bolsters which rotate and support the logs, turning the flat beds into bogies. Most importantly, since the "logs" will be hand selected, the length and diameter are strictly a function of my personal choice. So not really an issue. The second is the Duke of Wellington carriage The Duke was Prime Minister at the time. The carriage was constructed for him for the opening day ceremonies and we do have some imagery of it. It was a 4 axle, 8 wheeled delight, on the left. During the procession to Manchester, there was a stop over at Parkside, for water. MP Huskisson, instrumental in Parliament getting approval for the LMR, was speaking with the Duke of Wellington. In the event, Huskisson was run over by Rocket and killed². The carriage went on to Manchester, celebrations muted. The carriage returned to Liverpool where it was placed on a siding. It never was used again. It ran a total of 62 miles and was retired. I feel confident in Hornby eventually producing this carriage, due to the excellent images and its notoriety. The other carriages it appeared with will make for a beautiful rake. We do have this enigmatic image of the carriage on the mainline Bee (1)Reference: today 3.5 meters (11' 6") would be minimum centerline to centerline, with higher values for higher speed lines (2)Huskisson did have a cenotaph erected on the way side, and it is still there, to this very day. I do not believe there is public access. Further, the LMR named a 1st class carriage for him. Hornby have confirmed, in writing, that it will appear in R30090. It is also the title carriage in R40371.

Hi ThreeLink 👋 The transitional Generation 2 tender is on my list of things to do. Fairly easy to take a 1980s Rocket tender and cut the barrel out and replacing it with a simple box. A little more effort yields rivets and a funnel. With the new Hornby utility ("coal") wagons, I can skip the cutting the barrel out step! A detail which has eluded me is how the water was moved from the tender into the boiler. A main axle water pump seems likely, with a diversion of water back to the tender when not required. In other words, the pump functioned to draw water from the tender, no matter what. Yet where it pumped the water to could be selected. Either into the boiler or the tender. Steam injection was off in the future, so we can discount that method. Always something new to discover! Bee

Hi ThreeLink 👋. You are indeed correct. A wagon was adapted for the Trials. This was an impromptu tender. Generation 1 tenders The first important change was efficiency. Barrels could hold water, but were entirely wasteful of space. A square metal box fit the space so much better! Generation 2 tenders An example of a generation 2 tender. The lads realized that the entire thing could be made of metal. Generation 3 tenders. Bee

This web page may be of real interest. There are lots and lots of images about the ferry. It is impressive! https://harwichanddovercourt.com/train-ferry.html Bee

Hi JJ 👋 It is perfectly okay to ask me anything you like. I will answer your questions, within reason. I'm not about to play tricks or games on you, I will treat you fairly and kindly. I'm certainly not going to make fun of you. I'm glad you like the answers and images. Its part of me sharing my enthusiasm for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Just so you know, I really do like your posts and your layout. Hang in there JJ. your friend Bee

I just picked up large lot of Threaded Rod, manufactured by the JI Morris company. Ranging in size from 2-56 all the way down to 0000-160. 0000-160 threaded rod is 0.021" in major diameter. I've gone through the JI Morris catalog and total the value at $385 USD, not counting the plain rod in the lot, just for the threaded rod. Total I paid, including tax and shipping was $30. A steal. The seller had no idea! Ha! Bee

Hi LT&SR_NSE 👋 Thank you for pointing out that topic for JJ. I didn't mind answering his question and more. I also provide proof that Hornby's Coal Wagons were used at the Rainhill Trials here https://uk.hornby.com/community/forum/200th-anniversary-rainhill-trials-1829-2029-328559?ccm_paging_p=1#end-of-replies I haven't bothered with the evidence that they were used in a utility wagon way, but will if interest is expressed. Bee

Hi JJ 👋 Rather than have you read that lengthy post, I will answer your question directly A summary of what you asked is "What do I think of Hornby using some older tooling for new (and different) models?" I think it is perfectly OKAY! Here are some questions you didn't ask Are the Hornby Coal Wagons authentic? We have several period images of these wagons, in use, on the LMR. What they are not are "coal wagons". They were utility wagons, used in maintenance of way, spoilage hauling, & etc. These are the wagons used at the Rainhill Trials. What about the other Coal Wagons Sam shows? Those are Intermodal Coal Wagons, championed by the LMR. We have excellent mechanical drawings of them in Nicholas Wood 1834. They held the same volume of coal in the two boxes as in one chaldron, a standard unit of measure. The boxes could easily lift off the undercarriage and be placed elsewhere. What Sam didn't state is that the collieries flatly rejected these wagons and refused to purchase them. The LMR was forced to accept chaldrons as the collieries had an enormous imvestment in them and weren't about to change. So, while authentic, the LMR Intermodal Coal Wagons had an extremely brief period of use. Get chaldrons instead. Wood, 1834 also documents chaldrons with mechanical drawings. What of Sam's Intermodal Wagons? The reason Sam had such difficulty keeping his wagons coupled to Tiger is that his finescale peg was too low. I had similar issues when I modified the old Hornby carriages. I am also very concerned about the stability of the print material Sam uses. Old Triang acetate models warped and, per Pete Waterman, the material Sam uses will as well. Is it fair to knock Hornby's coal wagons? Not if you understand their actual, documented use. Sam does not, and so he constantly refers to them as Rocket Tenders. They were utility wagons and as such, were used at the trials in a utility sense. San Pareil also is depicted with this same utility wagon / tender. Further, is it fair to knock Hornby's wagons while pushing your own? Not if you expect to be perceived as an honest and fair reviewer. Is Sam knowledgeable about the LMR? No. Flatly no. Sam is unaware of the "as found" Lion photos. That is what Hornby based Tiger on and that is just cracking! Sam is unaware of the actual use of the Hornby coal wagons. Sam also shows us a 1st Glass carriage and says it is true to the prototype "as far as he knows", a phrase he uses repeatedly. Sadly, no. It is true to the 1930s reproductions, but clearly, in some areas, it does not match the mechanical drawings we do have What do I think of Sam? He is very knowledgeable about how models work and can provide us with valuable information comparing one model to another. I do not care about his opinion about the cost. It tells me more about his station in life than anything else. I can decide for myself if the model is worth it (hint: Tiger is!!) At 9:07 of the video, Sam states that Hornby is "contemptible". This forum will not permit negativity, so may I state that I am positive that Sam does not possess a mirror. Bee

Hi JJ I used google to answer your question. Zeebrugge is the name of a seaport in Belgium. I also tried to google the phrase "Not to be worked past Zeebrugge" and what you get is many hits for the Hornby R126 wagon. If I then tell google to remove the word Hornby from the search results ("Not to be worked past Zeebrugge" -Hornby) google finds NOTHING! So this phrase only appears on Hornby R126. Further, if I search for "Not to be worked past", there appears to be no formal railway sign like it. That is, JJ, the only place it appears is on R126. It is a Hornby invention! What I think the phrase should mean is that the UK railcar could be used as far from the UK as Zeebrugge, but no further. A limitation on where the wagon was permitted to be. Bee