What About The 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

Hi TopCat The magnetic couplings transmitting power from coach to coach is clearly a winner.* This eliminates all the control circuitry needed on a per coach basis. This also eliminates all the drag associated with pickups on a per coach basis. In your brake van, mount a 6 pin decoder. Battery or capacitor bank backed if you desire. A set of track pickups. Viola! Complete control over the lights. Low drag. Low cost for one decoder. Bee *Possibly modeled as hoses or cables, dependent on era.

Hello Topcat May I suggest a flip flop? Instead of red / green filters, sensitivities & etc, simply change the state of the coach lights when your sensor sees enough light (threshold). You turn on the trigger light buried in the track when you want to change the state of the coach lights. Leave the trigger light off if you are satisfied. Just a thought Bee

I should like to add that we have the mechanical drawings in Wood, 1838, which detail the points and turntables. Plate IV. For points, figure 4 shows the rails and figure 7 shows the eccentric capstan used to bend the stub rails to change the rails to diverting // non-diverting routes. For turntables, figure 9 shows the plan view, figure 10 the isometric and figure 11 the cross sectional view. We need to scale these up, as the LMR turned the locomotives separately from the tenders, something we would shy away from. Not an enormous detail, but one nonetheless. Everything you would require to complete an Era 1 track system, with respect to the prototype. Having the fishbelly rail on square stone blocks and mounting chairs is one thing. Having the more advanced components would be my dream! All of the mechanical drawings exist.... Bee

Hi Son of Triangman We have wonderful drawings of the precise fishbelly rail used, given in Nicholas Wood, 1853. Plate III, figure 8. The accompanying text is in french, but crisply describes it as the rail used. Birkinshaw provides the process of the rolling mill, to slitting mill and to structural shape rolling in his patent. Yes, a patent! The critical shaping of the wrought iron fishbelly, however, is lost in the mists of time. I've spent many a hour in discussion with my engineering pals, trying to determine this final critical step. It is clear that Thomas has this final step wrong and is unfamiliar with the process. We have some thoughts, that would be entirely cost effective. (Untested) The question of why bother with that final fishbelly shape trim for the LMR and Birkinshaw is one of economy in materials. Wrought iron was expensive, and the material removed could be returned to the furnace. The deflection between chairs was controlled to within spec, but the excess material wasn't needed at the chairs. Later, as the locomotives and stock became heavier, and the wear more than expected, parallel rail took over, as the additional fishbelly step savings in material did not equal the economy in production. We can see how to mill the rail in CNC, but this would drive the price through the roof. I would buy fishbelly rail in a heartbeat. But only if it did not cost as much as a new automobile Bee

The reason I suggested that, JJ, is because your video is an excellent demonstration of how colored lights can be used in video portrayals. I know there are many Forum members who post youTube videos. Mostly, they show bright daylight video. With the interest in coach lighting, it is clear that an interest in other parts of the day exists. If that is your interest, take a look at JJ's video. Bee

Hello Brew Man I am glad to see that resolution to the problem is moving along smartly. That is satisfying to me. I seem to have somehow upset you, in my determination to see the solution. In that I find no satisfaction. If I have somehow offended you, my apologies. I do not wish ill will or hard feelings between us. What does moving the suppression components tell me? That Hornby recognized their initial solution didn't need a revision, it needed a redesign. Instead of a duff locomotive, a duff blanking plate. Far cheaper in returns and repairs to simply offer a relatively inexpensive blanking plate replacement instead of an expensive locomotive replacement. Would someone mind explaining to me why the suppression components are even needed anymore? It is clear from Teditor and yourself that the locomotives function without them. The tiny fields generated by modern motors are not likely to interfere much with RF transmissions. Witness the bluetooth receiver decoders, which would be in close proximity to the motor, albeit at a different frequency. Are the suppression components just an artifact of obsolete regulations? Bee

Hi JJ How could I miss it ?!?! Bee

Naturally, I am subscribed to Hornby's youTube channel. They just released the video of their visit at Model Rail Scotland. While the Flying Scotsman was the focus, I spotted something else: That is definitely the Booth 1st Curtain Carriage, to appear in R30090. The undercarriage lacks buffers on the far side. We cannot see through the carriage, there should be openings on the far side wall, just as they are in the facing side wall. Given the slightly blurry image (the only presentation in this video), it is hard to see the guard seating on the roof. The end wall shows the steps and foot rest for that seated guard, but even in the images in R30090, that seat is absent. I think this is a 3D engineering print. It has that appearance, but I could definitely be wrong. Please do lend any knowledge you may have regards these types of Hornby display. From a personal standpoint, I am excited to see it in the wild!! First peek!! Bee

It has come to my attention that youTube shorts require a different aspect ratio than I have been using. This is a re-upload of the relevant BANKING TEST video with the proper aspect ratio (hopefully!) Edit: Yes! The aspect ratio is now correct.

Hi Fishy 👋 Long Distance made two posts in sequence. One was on the "Light Fantastic" thread, which drew Moderator attention and warning. This is the one you reference. Another was here, in this thread. I did happen to see it. The extemely brief post could have had two interpretations. Perhaps it is as Long Distance protests, his own experiences. Yet the other interpretation was, to put it mildly, upsetting and impolite. My jaw dropped when I read it. I will take Long Distance at his word, but moderator action reveals how the moderators interpreted it. Long Distance attracted moderator action on two posts at the same time. Hence, Fishy, your understandable confusion. ÷÷÷÷÷÷ Hi Long Distance I know that Fishy will see this post, but I am unsure if you will. I do hope this finds you well. I will repeat that I take you at your word, that your post related to your personal experiences. Perhaps you would expand your remarks, making clear how your experiences are relevant to Son of Triangman's plans. Or, start a new thread. Tell us about your models, layout, questions you may have. You haven't been banned, but I can assure you that engaging in argument with the moderators is not well tolerated. Friendly, yet unsolicited, advice. Bee

Hi XYZ I do wish it was clear as that. The acronym appears on several different tarpaulins. Its not just this one. The one I chose is the clearest. Alternatively, we also have the published works of company officers, who refer to the company as the "Liverpool and Manchester Railway". Parliament authorized the railway with the title "Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill" [HC Deb 06 April 1826 vol 15 cc89-94] When spelled out, it is Liverpool and Manchester Railway. As a acronym, the railway used LPMRW. Is this a Margaret v Peggy situation? Bee

Hi CaptAisling The sense I get is one of branding and marketing. Hornby, the company, wants to sell its various ranges of product. The product lines vary from simple and colorful toys for children, all the way to exquisite models for discerning, expert enthusiasts. The way to target these product lines is by branding. With that fundamental discussion out of the way, Hornby Dublo appears to me to be their top shelf product, die cast bodies and etc. Limited edition models. They absolutely will function, but the sense I get is that these will nestle in their boxes instead of hard use on the layout. I absolutely may be wrong in this, but those are my impressions. I hesitate to provide more than this, as anything more describes the marketing strategy effect on my person, than the marketing strategy itself. It is marketing and branding, used to separate grades of product. I hope that helps Bee

Hi ThreeLink No one was more surprised than I to see the test perform so marvelously. Yet rather than some presentient expertise, I think I was fairly lucky. 1) Velocity v Chain Length. I set the DC power to the lowest I could whilst still maintaining steady forward motion. My reasoning was to reduce impact force under the controlled crash regime. In retrospect, this allowed time for the load to come off of the lead locomotive [Lion] and then Lion to accelerate up to normal speed with the drag removed. That takes time. Rate of motion changes are not instantaneous. If the drag chains were shorter, or the velocity of the trailing locomotive [Tiger] higher, then the entire compliance of drag chain slack may have been removed from the system. This likely would have resulted in derailment, as Tiger would then transmit the controlled crash force into Lion. Luck. 2) The number of chaldrons in consist. As luck will have it, I only have 9 Accurascale Chaldrons. Further, Lion or Tiger handles 4, with the 5th chaldron causing minor wheel slip. 9 is coincidentally the correct number of chaldrons. Many more would be beyond the capabilities of the pair. As we go fewer, the lead locomotive has little need of assistance. 6 chaldrons may illustrate banking, but it would not be conclusive. Luck. 3) For a DC test, such as mine, the locomotives should be identical drive mechanisms. Hornby decided to produce Lion AND Tiger. It is clear from the square holes in Lion's front buffer beam that this was Hornby's intention all along. If Hornby didn't produce Tiger, the test would be possible only under a DCC regime, with speed matching. Even then, the distribution of chaldron load will be critical. Luck. 4) Accurascale Chaldron drag chains. Accurascale decided on authentic drag chains, rather than rigid drag chains. Revisiting point 1, the Hornby drag chains have little compliance. The lead locomotive would have insufficient time to accelerate before Tiger's force came crashing through if there were only Hornby drag chains. Luck. 5) Accurascale rolling friction. The chaldron rolling friction is much higher, per wagon, than the Hornby rolling stock. This kept the wagons from bouncing ahead of Tiger, rippling through consist. If I only had Hornby wagons, I would need far more wagons than are already in my fleet, even with real drag chains. Luck. All of these features fortuitously aligned. I will take some credit for conceiving the inclined plane / horizontal plane equivalence and for a rigid test regime. Further, I expected the drag chains to provide some compliance. But there is far more to the test than meets the cursory eye. I think I got lucky. Hence my astonishment at a successful test result in such a short time. Bee

Today, we refer to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway as the LMR. But that certainly wasn't the acronym the LMR used! I will tell you what it was, but first, read about the clear proof. The LMR was constructed to handle the volume of freight between Liverpool and Manchester, freight far beyond the capacity of the canals. Cotton, in particular. Almost immediately, the Board was inundated with claims of damaged merchandise. How was that? Embers landed on that merchandise and, at times, burned that wagon to the ground. In simple fact, Railway Guards rode on the rear wagons to look explicitly for fires. The LMR, being a business organization, looked to reduce costs. The LMR covered the merchandise with tarpaulins. These swiftly became targets of theft, as they were enormous bits of cloth with no identifying marks. So the LMR stamped their acronym on the tarpaulins. Ackermann, our known good observer, records that acronym on several depicted wagons. Here is one of the clearest Quite legibly, we have LPM RW. I make that to be L[iver] P[ool] M[anchester] R[ail] W[ay]. I invite other interpretations, but this one is obvious. In any event, Liverpool is two words!! I've seen some entomology discussions about this oddity online, but the short answer is 'Yes, two words is considered valid'. Consider the locomotive (LMR26) named "Liver", a Bury 2-2-0. It is oddly named, but only until the two word reference is understood. Next we come to "Rail Way", also two words. Historically, this is also correct. References to rail way, rail-way abound. It is our modern spelling which demands a singular word. If I was to refer to the LPM RW, most all would look at me quizzically, yet this was the LMR reference they used on themselves. Another bit of railway oddity that will be duplicated on my scale tarpaulins, if I only could understand how the LMR tied them down. Bee

You are quite welcome Too Tall. Bee

For this, you can thank the Railway Act of 1844. In the very early days of railways, there was little accommodation for poor people. There were 1st class carriages, so called glass carriages because they were enclosed and had actual windows. There was 2nd class, not enclosed and in 1830/31, literally without a roof. On the LMR, 2nd class absolutely was seated. The LMR provided a roof and end plates to reduce burnt passenger clothing from embers. Eventually, 2nd was enclosed completely, yet 2nd remained a considerably expensive fare throughout LMR history. The LMR did not want to undercut their own business with 3rd class and only offered it when forced to by Parliament. Parliament decided that there should be trains at 1d (penny) per mile. This was still a substantial fare for poor people, but the railways grudgingly complied, offering one train a day in each direction at wee hours. Rather rude accommodation, not necessarily seated. So called Parliamentary Trains. Within 30 years, the railways had enclosed 3rd class and had 3rd seating, which meant there was little difference between 2nd and 3rd. The railways simply dropped 2nd class as a result, being required to offer 3rd by Parliament. So until 1956, there was posh 1st and egalitarian 3rd, but no 2nd. I usually don't comment in TT, but do pop in to see, from time to time, what you gentlemen are up to. This caught my eye and thought to share this railway oddity. Bee