What About The 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

The testing is complete. I am completely over the moon. Hornby Lion and Tiger BANKING a rake of Chaldrons - YouTube There was a significant amount of preparation for this test. I confirmed the current draw for each locomotive, for each load of 0 to 9 chaldrons. It was safe, varying from about 0.034 amps to 0.04 amps. Next, I tried both locomotives on the same loop. 0.066 amps, still safe. I put them 1/2 loop from each other and let them run, to see which one, if any, was faster. Lion was, but only a pinch so, it took nearly 10 minutes for this to become evident. The locomotives are well matched. Either locomotive is incapable of dragging 9 chaldrons at this speed without wheel slip or stalling with wheel slip. Either could drag 4 chaldrons without any wheel slip. The test was amazing. I had Lion attempt to drag 9 chaldrons. With Tiger approaching, my finger was on the power off button. Completely unneccesary. Tiger gathered 3 to 4 chaldrons, and with the load off of Lion, Lion easily went forward. Stability was achieved in inches!!!! Lion always dragged the front 3, Tiger always propelled the back three. The center 3 chaldrons would vary as a function of the momentary load on either loco. They never oscillated violently, just wiggled between states. I watched them go round and round. No issues. I took the videos you see, and concluded the test. This functioned exactly as the LMR did on the inclined planes. Wow!!! Bee

As an inventor, Edison made 1000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the lightbulb. When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied,

Long Distance, you wrote: What does this have to do with Model Railways or Hornby? ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ JJ is showing off a new lighting effect on his model railway. My personal view is that the blue and purple lighting could be used to get twilight type videos, with an illuminated carriage running by. We would get a sense of the carriage exterior, dimly lit, with the interior of the carriage visible. Real darkness does not work, the camera gain causes the exterior to be flat black and the interiors to bleed too bright. Bee

Hello 81F 👋 Thank you for the correction. I assumed the binder jet sintering method. The lost wax method you utilized appears to be far superior, with much higher dimensional stability and certainly superior weight for a given volume. A clear winner. If I may ask, since you executed the Ruston Shunter in both fine detail plastic and in metal, what was the rough price multiplier? Was it 3×, 10x or 30x the price? Not the absolutes, just the relative values. I have indeed seen the John Bull and others. I had a complete list of all manufacturer Era 1 models. Almost all are HO scale, not OO. John Bull is a member of the Samson-class and should have a boiler ~7'3" long. Rocket's boiler was only 6 feet long. Yet when Sam shows us the 2020 Hornby Rocket head to head, John Bull looks diminutive. To each his own, of course, but I find mixing scales to be quite glaring. Once again, thank you for sharing your expertise with me. Greatly appreciated Bee

Here are the results. Does Tiger propel chaldrons? Hornby Lion and Tiger BANKING a rake of Chaldrons - YouTube The buffer beam adapter installation is illustrated, along with testing 1, 2 and 3 chaldrons. I recognize that this is only on a straight. Yet my concern was that the chaldrons would be pushed ahead of Tiger, to be repeatedly bashed as the chaldrons were propelled. That concern was alleviated with the results of the test. No buffer lock. No derailments. Success! The banking test awaits! Bee

Chaldrons were selected for the banking test, but why? The Accurascale chaldrons use drag chains. Not inflexible plastic drag chains ala Hornby, rather, the Accurascale drag chains consist of actual link formed chains. The Hornby drag chains are rigid, with little play in the peg system. The locomotive propelling the system must take the load away from the locomotive dragging the system, without shocking the consist from the rear. In a rigid system, the wagons will be trapped between a fast locomotive and slow locomotive. Any slight angle, anywhere in that rigid system will concentrate the applied force, leading to lateral displacement and derailments. Yet with actual drag chains, the lead locomotive will only feel a lessening of drag, not an impulse of shock. Further, the propelling locomotive must not lock buffers. Here is the first issue. Tiger's buffers do not align with the dumb buffers on the Chaldrons, horizontally or vertically. This problem is far from unique. I've taken the hint and constructed a similar wood chaldron buffer attachment, similar to this real world shunter The pine was resawn to the thickness of the front buffer (2.2mm) so a firm fit is provided. A sandwich assembly was glued up and trimmed. The attachment clips over the front, avoiding all three hooks present. Call it generation 1. Once the glue is fully cured, I can try a simple propelling test. One chaldron in front of Tiger at slow speed. The dumb buffers on the chaldrons do align from chaldron to chaldron, so then I can test 2 or 3 chaldrons being propelled. Once I have a reasonable propelling regime, the actual banking test can begin. Step by step! Bee

Hello Son of Triangman Up until this moment, I avoided commenting upon this thread. In light of your recent positive statement, I'd like to respectfully offer the following. Branding is important to the forward facing part of the business. It is the first thing a potential customer will see. You have established wonderful branding, right here, as Son of Triangman. Extraordinarily knowledgeable. Friendly. Take advantage of that sir. The reputation of an online business will be examined online. When a potential customer looks at your business, they will naturally encounter your posts here and see the characteristics I've mentioned, to your distinct advantage. Its just a thought. Bee

Hello Range Rider 👋 If you do not already have one, do yourself an extraordinary favor and purchase a multimeter. You can test all kinds of items, but a very easy way to tell if your points are isolating / non-isolating is to test them for continuity when on the bench vis diverting / non-diverting routes. In situ? Test for voltage on diverting / non-diverting routes. You will swiftly learn to recognize visual cues betwixt the two and not need to test, but until then? Your multimeter will be your best friend! Oh, and welcome aboard! Bee

I do worry sometimes that I am boring folks to death, babbling on about some detail or another. Thank you Ellocoloco for your interest. It gives me enthusiasm to go on. One significant item of the early days to have survived is the Rule Book!!!! That is, we have written direction from the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Board of Directors to all staff. Quite extensive and the result of practical analysis of the railway activities, serving to run a well ordered railway. A fantastic view into daily operations. Now that I have a well matched pair of locomotives, I can finally perform an interesting experiment. But first, a review of some specific rules to Enginemen. Orders to Enginemen and Firemen 11) ... no engine shall propel before it wagons or carriages ... except when assisting up the inclined planes. 26) ... enginemen are ordered to be ready, on the signal being given, to follow the trains immediately after they pass ... up the bank 30) Enginemen with trains requiring assistance up the inclined planes are required .... to go up the bank¹ first and let the assisting engine follow... In plain English, we can deduce the following. Heavy trains cannot make it up the Sutton Inclined Plane or the Whiston Inclined Plane, to the Rainhill Level Plane, without assistance. The heavy trains were instructed to run beyond the assisting (banking) engine, parked in a siding. Once it has passed, the points were changed and the banking engine would run up behind the train needing assistance. The banking engine would then propel some of the carriages before it. As the weight of the carriages and/or wagons was now taken off the lead engine, the lead engine could pull some, whilst the banking engine could propel some. Essentially a controlled crash! Consider now Hornby Lion and Tiger. Lion cannot pull 9 Accurascale Chaldrons without assistance on a flat, level plane. I've double headed Lion with Rocket to pull the consist. Yet these locomotives are not well matched. Lion and Tiger, however, much like the prototypes, have identical drive mechanisms. They are well matched. Suppose now the following. Lion attempts to pull 9 Chaldrons. It cannot. Lion can readily handle 3, but not 9. Tiger comes up behind and propels some of the Chaldrons before it. As Tiger takes up the load, the load on Lion is reduced and therefore, Lion should be able to handle a reduced load. When does stability occur, if ever? Do the Chaldrons derail? Does Tiger propel 4, Lion pull 4 with the odd Chaldron in the middle bouncing about? This experiment is completely analogous to the Whiston and Sutton Inclined Planes on the real LMR. The consist is too much for the tiny locomotive and assistance is required. With a closely matched pair, the velocities will match fairly well, and the test will be meaningful. If the propelling engine is too fast or too slow, my analogous test is invalid. I have no idea what is going to happen, but I am quite excited to finally do this!! Just like the LMR. Bee ¹ Assisting engines were also called "banking engines" as they assisted others up the bank!