What About The Bee

Plenty of time for the moderators to get an answer and maybe to get this sorted. And like NTP, I also use a Gmail account. Three of them in fact. We got caught out by this nonsense years ago and made the deliberate decision to decouple the email account. Bee

I do think the moderators can get a definitive answer from Hornby Towers. What is your time line, your terminal date @Brew Man? Bee

In a way, I do understand not permitting changes to the email address. That is a brilliant way to hijack an account and plunder the credit card details. Fine. But Customer Service should have the power. That I do not get Bee

What!?!?!? That makes no sense what so ever. There is no way to change this yourself, @Brew Man, in your account? @96RAFIt is time to use that shield that appears with your avatar. Bee

Yes, spot on. I have written to Hornby on this exact matter. Hopefully the online survey brings the point home more forcefully. And like @BritInVanCAI too am annoyed by ridiculous shipping costs for ROW. It absolutely has affected how I order product. Bee

Precisely that. How much do we, the customers, wish to pay for a service such as this? If the answer is zero, then Hornby has little financial encouragement to make a change. Hornby could offer free shipping (and hide the shipping cost in the price of the product). Hornby could offer free trunk service (and hide the trunk service cost in the price of the product). Do not underestimate the power of the accounting department, who can show decision makers the financial outcomes of their decisions. Bee

@Fishmanoz Doh! Well that is a hilarious error on my part. Yes, this is for DC, just as the title says. Bee

For those of us in ROW, delivery costs can be somewhat ridiculous. For the US, it is £30/shipment. For Australia, its is £50/shipment. So for those of us in ROW, this is not a trivial matter. I would love to see this change. It isn't just TT that runs into separate delivery costs, it is a company wide practice. The issue is warehouse space and logistics. As it stands now, the pallets of product come in to Hornby, and the product is shipped right out: to us, as well as to model shops. This requires minimal warehouse space, the only things that sit on a shelf are the unsold items, in bulk.. Logistics are simple. You ordered one, you get one. But in a system with a Trunk, extra warehouse space is required. Hornby must be prepared to rent or own a much larger warehouse, to accommodate any and all who wish to gang ship items. At one point, we investigated the number of orders that come in to Hornby as a function of the sequential order number system. I recall hundreds of orders, per day. What if they all want the Trunk? Logistics are more complicated. Either every order is picked at the time of shipment, requiring allocated / non-allocated inventory system OR, orders are separated into individual bins. Both are error prone. What happens when Tom puts the product into the incorrect bin. In the allocation system, what happens when picking goes wrong, or, heaven forbid, Hornby runs out of stock, even if it was allocated I would love to be wrong, but the reasons indicated above make Hornby's decision a commercial one. They subcontracted the shipping to GRM based upon the system in place and would need to renegotiate any contract with GRM to change that system. Assessment: please do not hold your breath waiting for this change. As much as I support the desire, I understand why it is not going to happen. May the railway gods prove me wrong! 🙏 Bee

Ermmm..... Francis, The instructions show how to control the point motor, to get the points to move from diverging to non-diverging or visa versa. The Hornby diagram (2A, 2B) shows the connection to the point motor, as the point motor needs power to operate. The instructions do not to show how to power the track. The track is wired separately. Further, the diagram is for DC operation, not DCC. If I remember properly, you are investigating DCC. If so, the diagrams Hornby present are not appropriate. Bee

You are quite welcome @robcat. Happy to share what little I know. Bee

Very nice NTP! Bee

Hi Darren When you bench run that motor, does it make the noise you are hearing?? Have you located the source of the noise?? Bee

Hi Colin The issue sounds like a cache problem. So this eliminates the phone, and implicates upstream devices. The phone can display the webpage. It just depends upon which channel the phone gets that page. Try power cycling all the upstream devices to clear any cache they may have. Routers, modems, etc. Bee

Please make the title more appropriate: "Why can't I reach the New Modeler's Shop website, when everyone else can?"

Hi Robcat I would like to compliment Hornby at this moment. It would have been so easy to market OO Locomotion No.1 as era 1. Yet, there were at least three versions of Locomotion prior to 1840. One of those versions had twin chimneys, side by side! What was Hornby to model? What was Hornby to pick? Hornby wisely markets OO Locomotion No.1 as era 11; as preserved. Which means that there is an anachronistic feature which is sure to catch the eye. Prominent at the front of the boiler. Anachronistic because it was fitted in 1883, during its (presumably static) visit to the USA Of course, it is the bell. What ever sound file you choose, make sure that you have a bell you can ring. The bell was likely rigged as a clapper on a pull rope. Single bell ring per pull. DING! As to a trumpet? The trumpet was codified as part of Liverpool and Manchester Railway rules for specific blocks of track, and the LMR was highly influential to other railways. Locomotion No.1 had service records extending to 1840. With that overlap, it is possible that a trumpet could have been used on the S&DR, but I simply do not know. Different railway, different rules. Bee

There are no sound recordings of Locomotion No.1. It was put into preservation long before Edison perfected sound recordings. Even at the 50 year anniversary of the S&DR when Locomotion was steamed, it was still too early. At the Centenary celebration, it wasn't Locomotion, but rather a similar looking locomotive. Even at that, I do not recall that film having sound. I could be wrong, but it was 1925. Films did not have sound then. What we do know is that the pistons were double acting and therefore, four chuffs per wheel revolution. The National Railway Museum commissioned a study published in 2023, a photograph from that presented here The steam chest is in the foreground, the cylinder in the background. The valve gear that drives the slide valve may be discovered in the Killingworth Locomotive drawing. Start with the diagonal rods, working outwards. Hornby's OO Locomotion No.1 has the round topped steam chests, as shown I have already checked. As to what Locomotion No.1 really sounded like? Your guess is as good as mine. Any 4 chuff/rev sound file should give the basic impression. Pick one. The usual fine print about the synchronization of sound applies Bee

Perhaps @malyou could set up a small experiment. If you have a bit of extra track around, set up a test loop. Put Tiger on the test loop and give it a go. If the problems follow Tiger to the test loop, it is likely Tiger at fault. If the problems do NOT follow Tiger, it is likely your layout. Divide and Conquer Bee

I think it will be very unlikely that Hornby release Locomotion No.1 as 'Active' for the S&DR Anniversary. For commercial reasons. Hornby have expended a good bit of resources to bring this model to fruition. That should not go to waste. For public eye reasons. The public has observed Locomotion No.1 as it was after restoration in 1857 by the Shildon Works. For more than 150 years, the public has a view of what Locomotion No.1 should look like. Active is not that. For practical reasons. Active's valve gear, as portrayed by Longridge, is very much like the Killingworth Locomotive. Nicholas Wood, 1825. The front piston and connecting rods drive the front axle, on both sides. The rear piston drives the rear axle on both sides. Unlike a more modern steam engine, the quartering is by axle, not by which side of the axle. On Active, the rear axle is quartered to the front axle, not the left wheels to the right wheels. The chain in the Killingworth Locomotive is present to retain the quartering. For Active, Longridge does not portray any timing chain, and the sketch by Backhouse has the cable stays drawn, but not any timing chains. This arrangement was so poor, that Robert Stephenson and Co refitted Active's valve gear in 1828. To what is not precisely known, as the Shildon Works 'restored' Locomotion No.1 in 1857. For practical reasons, duplicating a poorly functioning valve gear arrangement is a terrible idea. Would I buy as Active, instead of Locomotion No.1? In a heart beat. But it may be quite the wait. Bee

Hi @robcat Locomotion No.1 comes "DCC Ready", not "DCC Fitted". Further, on the Hornby webpages, R30346 has been marked "unavailable" for many months now. This means is sold out on pre-order. You must therefore be purchasing Locomotion No.1 from a model shop, who will fit the decoder for you. With Locomotion No.1 in high demand, you would be best served by placing your order with your model shop now and not waiting, as someone else may get there before you. [Edit: and to beat the 1 Sept price rise] With the model secured, have the model shop fit the decoder later. That is exactly what they are telling you. They cannot be sure what Hornby is to supply. So they are being cautious. As to HM7000, that recommendation appears for many locomotives when shopping. It's really an advertisement for HM7000. Treat that as you will. Bee

Hello Robcat While I cannot answer your question about a sound decoder for Locomotion No.1, I can answer your question about the couplings. I wrote to Carl, Director of Engineering at Hornby, to ask that very question. Here is what he said: ÷÷÷ The answer to your question, locomotion will be supplied with the following; 1) Moulded chain type coupling – suitable for Hornby era 1 rolling stock. 2) A metal chain type coupling with magnet – to mate with Accurascale Chaldrons. 3) A metal chain with a moulded NEM plug – That can be connected to any piece of rolling stock that has an NEM pocket. ÷÷÷ Hope that helps. Bee

A clipped and zoomed image of the above. Hopefully, this shows the prood It does! Yippee! The bold black line is the singular rail, running left right. The vertical lines are the join Bee

I was unsatisfied with Milen's answer. I do understand his rationale and reasons, but it leaves the technical question unresolved. Here is a much better answer than the one provided. The first unknown to obviate is any length variation the SCARM library may posses. To this end, a first start point is set at X=0 Y=0 and A=180. Essentially a starting point facing left on my screen. Then, for each subsequent test starting point, X is variable, whilst Y=0 and A=0. A track going to the right on my screen. The length of track to the left or right is now completely irrelevant. It is simply the join in the middle! The second item to resolve is the resolution. Ha! That is, at the maximum zoom using SCARM, what does each pixel represent? The standard tick marks on SCARMs' axes do not change as you zoom. Each tic represents 10 millimeters. So at maximum SCARM zoom, I issued a Windows 'print screen' which copies the screen so it can be pasted. Which I did, in Microsoft Paint. I then examined the pixel address of -10 mm and 0 mm, finding the delta is 200 pixels. 10 mm / 200 pixels = 0.050 mm/ pixel 50 microns per pixel. At maximum zoom SCARM presents 0.050 mm/pixel. Note: Your screen may vary in resolution, this was using my screen. My screen is 1366 pixels wide. Knowing this, I asked for three starting points. In each, Y=0 and A=0. But X=0 then X=0.05 mm and then X=0.10 mm. The image represents those three starting points. At 0 mm, the join line is 1 pixel wide. At 0.05 mm, there are two lines, side by side, looking like 1 fat line, two pixels wide. Finally, at 0.1 mm, there is a line, a gap then a line. It is my assertion that I can provide 20 times better tolerance than SCARM permits, when using SCARM. The image confirms the resolution and the assertion. Bee Edit: I saved the image as png, where the lines are visible separately. Apparently, the forum hosting tool compresses the image, making the separate lines hard to see, even when viewing an image directly from the gallery. This, unfortunately, make the proof hard to see.