What About The Bee
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by What About The Bee
-
-
Dukedog
I can see two apparent crossovers on the left side, top and bottom corners of your plan. There is no denotation of a diamond crossing in either spot.
I suspect these tracks are actually on different levels.
Can you split out the levels for examination?
Bee
-
1
-
-
Make the double slip fixed polarity.
The four lines that lead into it must all be isolated on both ends. The four lines that lead into it are supplied by auto-reversers.
Sorted
Bee
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Too Tall said:
Now I best get myself braced for when the finance minister finds out 😳
Run!!! Save yourself!! 🤣
Nice haul Too Tall
Bee
-
1
-
-
Can we get some imagery of the two connectors that make up the pair?
In situ, in the connected position.
Disconnected, so the mating electrical connections can be observed.
Does this connector pair also serve as the draw bar? That is, is force applied by running the locomotive with a consist, trying to pull the connector open? If yes, is there any mechanical detent to protect the electrical connection from being broken?
There are a bunch of really sharp lads about. Its worth an examination. Might be a simple fix.
Bee
-
Hello Ian
We've not spoken before, so welcome aboard!
You are describing a continuity problem. That is, there is no path from the track to the LED strip. Somewhere, there is an open.
9v batteries are fine for go/no go solutions.
What you really want or need is a digital multimeter. For your purposes, nearly any one will do.
Set the multimeter to measure resistance (Ω) and test part by part, to find the open. Place one probe on the metal tire of the wheel, say, and the other on the axle. The meter will likely read 0 ohms, meaning its closed or shorted. That's good in our situation. Alternatively, it could read infinite ohms, meaning no continuity or open. Viola! You have found the offender.
Using the multimeter carefully, component by component, and you will find the exact faulty connection. Should not take terribly long either. Even with learning your new multimeter, it should be under 1 hour. Once you know which component, it should not be hard to spot the issue.
The battery just says its working, not working. But which part?
Get a multimeter.
Bee
-
I totally agree. Charging the fire through the chimney is very strange indeed. How can fuel be added through the firetubes? Answer: there were no firetubes! Henry Booth famously suggests firetubes for Rocket at the Rainhill Trials. Twin Sisters predates Rocket. Indeed, competitor San Pariel was a return flue boiler, sans tubes.
So how can we be sure the fuel was added via the chimney? The newspaper report is indisputable.
"There are two chimneys, through the sides of which openings are left to throw in the fuel."
Verbatim Quote¹There may have been other uses as you suggest, but this was the reported use. That same newspaper report states that
"...having a conical tube passing up through the centre of the boiler..."
There must be a grate on the bottom of that conical tube, so as to support the coke while it burns and to permit air to flow into that conical tube. Otherwise, the conical tube has a sealed bottom, only open to the chimney. That will make it hard to sustain a fire.
My purely speculative cut away sketch of a Twin Sisters boiler
We have a cutaway of a vertical boiler in Janvier 1838, which does include firetubes.
Bee
¹ I did not record the name of the newspaper, thinking that the website would retain free access to the data. Liverpool Albion? It is now behind a paywall. I did capture the image, read the entire report here
-
2
-
-
Disappointing @sir johnbut Hornby will sort this. Please do keep us posted.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Hello ThreeLink
I am pleased that you find the chimney doors as I do. I was very excited to find them, as we know they existed. Such an odd feature.
As to the height, I was trying to portray an upper limit. Perhaps that wasn't clear. That the door could be no higher than head height. I fully agree that the doors should be lower, to facilitate use. How much lower? It depends on how much credence we apply to the height of the footplates drawn by Shaw, noting that the Stephenson drawing shows only the mechanicals, not any body work.
I too have noticed the tool. For the benefit of others
I suggest that we see the top, because an engineman would place the tool with the handle up, for convenience. I make it to be a T-Handle.It is a long tool. Based on orientation and placement, it very likely extends completely across the cavity. How long? Ask Shaw.
We do not see the working end of the tool. It could be a shovel. I make it to be a tool to poke the fire, through the door, which is entirely speculative.
As to loading fuel through the door, as specified by the press? There are two doors, and the solution would likely be the same for both. Certainly, a long shovel could reach the tender and the door nearest the tender, but what of the door between the cylinders? That doesn't work. I would propose a bucket of fuel, placed on the top of the boiler by the chimney door. An engineman would simply pick up a lump and 'throw it in', as stated in the press. Poking the fire with the long tool. Again, entirely speculative.
About the perspective and scaling issues? Its all wrong, and I have noted this throughout this thread as well. For example: length. Twin Sisters has 3 axles of 4 foot wheels. The absolute minimum is that Twin Sisters is 12 feet long. Yet the tender is drawn equally as long. This is the barrel tender of the period, built on the common utility waggon. Simply put, no, its not that long.
Your solution makes sense. The axles were sprung and this could upset the balance. Reasonable and logical. The tender could be out of level based on load.
I do agree that the sketch could have been drawn in different places or at different times. This could just be a working sketch, in preparation for a more carefully drawn subsequent presentation, a known practice of artists. Certainly, Twin Sisters was a unique engine, and as Three Link points out, the entire railway was novel. It may have confused Shaw, who perhaps only had a small time frame to make the sketch. We really will never know. I accept the Shaw sketch for design cues and thank the heavens for the mechanical drawing in the Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd archives.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Whoops! I didn't read carefully enough Brew Man. Hard clamping the rod for the points may not be desired.
Bee
-
Commercial production would use a form to bend the handrail repetitively. The price of that form, to include the engineering, would dwarf the price of any kit we could possibly purchase.
You guys are too hard on yourselves
Bee
-
Alternatively, add a tiny swatch of translucent film, as a filter, right in the firebox door opening.
Think of it as sunglasses for your locomotive.
Cut to the right size, test for brightness, adding another layer or changing opacity to suit.
Affix with a dab or two of superglue
Bee
-
Pack the 2.6 mm pipe anchor with an extra layer of wire insulation. The color blend perfectly, making it camouflaged. The extra bit will appear as a pipe join.
And the anchor will actually function as an anchor, a complete bonus! 😁
Bee
-
I've currently got 48 purchased components in Twin Sisters. For example, the motor is 1 part, whereas the gear driven by the worm has 2, there is a grub screw to attach the gear to the axle. I don't know quite how to count the 3D printed portion, except to say that there are currently 517 sketches. Each sketch is used to create features in the 48 purchased components and the 3D structure. Likely to be many more sketches along the way, as other parts are installed in CAD.
You need to be organized!!
Bee
-
I got the 6 chuffs per revolution as well NTP. I was confused until you mentioned 3 cylinders. Thank you!
I mark the orientation of the crank pin to the coupling rod, and simply count the number of chuffs until it returns to that location. In this case, 6.
Looks about right to me
Bee
-
I decided to install the chimney cable stays. There are quite a number of stays in Shaw's drawing of Twin Sisters. Kind of bewildering. Being a careful lad, I traced each one, identifying where the stay came from and where it attached to.
And what to my wondering eyes did appear? The door in the chimney, perfectly clear! 😉
Firstly a review of the statements, this published 12 Sept 1829, 6 weeks after LMR takes possession of the locomotive.
"This engine has two cylindrical boilers, placed vertically on 6 wheels, with a fire-place¹ in each, having a conical tube passing up through the centre of the boiler. There are two chimneys, through the sides of which openings are left to throw in the fuel."
From this, we can know that the openings in the chimney are very likely below head height. For poking the fire, the engineman needs to see in, to see what he is poking. To permit fuel to be "thrown in", the opening would certainly be low enough such that an engineman could reach it. So the opening was likely head height or lower.
We also have this statement from George Stephenson to the Chief Draftsman at the Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd works in Newcastle, in a letter dated 13 Aug 1829.
"....I have put to the coke engine² a longer exarsting pipe, reaching to nearly the top of the chimney, but find it does not nearly do so well as putting it in to the chimney lower down..."
If George had his way, we would call it the exarsting pipe and not the blast pipe. A blast pipe causes a venturi effect to draw the fire. The exarsting pipe cannot draw the fire with a large opening in the chimney, the air would be drawn from the opening, not the firebox.
From this we know there must be a door, so as to close that opening in the side of the chimney. If the opening was above the exarsting pipe, it would not require a door. But George states that he experimented with the location of the pipe, placing it at the top of the chimney. This is well above where an engineman could reach. There must be a door.
When I think of a door, I usually envision hinges on the side and the door swinging around a vertical axis, like the front door to your home. That is what I expected on Twin Sisters. That turns out to be a terrible assumption.
As I mentioned, I was drawing the cable stays. That's odd, I said to myself, that particular cable stay has a sharp bend in it. A line with a sharp bend in it. That isn't a cable stay, full stop.
Shaw has other prints which we have examined.
In examining this drawing by Shaw, the rearward facing guard, who is nearest us, has a brake handle directly to his right hand side. Take a moment to look at the image and find the brake handle. It is a crank handle. Drawn as a line with a sharp bend in it. It blends into the rock lines, but once you see it, trace the line down the front of the carriage, leading to the brake assembly. Definitely the brake handle, conveniently placed for the guard in charge of the brake.
Ah HA! There is a crank handle in the superstructure, mounted to the chimney on Twin Sisters.
So what does that crank handle do? Here is my solution to the door.
The central series of short repeated horizontal lines are a rack. The crank handle turns a pinion, which engages the rack. The long vertical lines are the guides for the door as it is raised and lowered by the rack and pinion. Naturally, the guides must be longer than the door is tall.
I've sketched this up in CAD, to make crisp three dimensional objects from the lines drawn by Shaw, shown side by side with Shaw.
On the other chimney, I've turned the crank handle, raising the door to expose the opening.
This particular chimney does not have the motor shaft running straight up inside. I am sorely tempted to leave the door up when 3D printed, perhaps with added firebox glow!
I am convinced. But have I convinced you? Let me know.
Bee
¹firebox.
² Twin Sisters. Recall the Stephenson dwg says "Liverpool Coke Engine". In LMR Board minutes, the engine is referred to as "The Sisters". Referenced in the press as "Twin Sisters".
-
1
-
-
Hi Brew Man
Try:
Pipe strap
Pipe Anchor
Bee
-
Hi Duke
The tricky bit will be the weights and measures standards, for the time. Let's just say that things weren't exactly defined or observed. Exactly how long was a yard? How much, precisely, does a pound weigh? Those questions are far deeper than they appear on the face of it. Traceable standards are accepted today, but it has taken quite a bit of effort to get here.
The metric units you quote were a system used in France but not on the LMR, where it was still the imperial system. The barrels on the tenders appeare quite large in comparison to the individuals working the locomotive, Three Link is most likely correct in referring to them as "tuns".
To sum it up, however, we are looking at an ancient unit of measure called the "tun". Like a chaldron (weight of coal), these had loose meanings which only acquire firm definition in a more modern era.
Bee
-
Always a judgment call Colin.
For this particular field¹, downtime in the field was extraordinarily expensive. It was a bottleneck step in the process. Downtime was over $50k/hour; but could range higher depending upon process flow. Clients tend to get hopping mad over that. The S/N curve indicated sporadic repair. So we would end up with ridiculous back charges WHEN the assembly failed.
You needed arms like an orangutan, the dexterity of a virtuoso and to top it off, on your back, under the machine, for a screw and tapped hole you could not see.
Fix it.
Bee
¹ Not locomotive manufacturing. It is competition sensitive, so I cannot say. Sorry.
-
What is a LARGE production run for us: 3500?
Many are advertised as limited to 500.
Pilot programs may be a bit of a stretch.
Bee
-
That's right @ColinB
Its a function of the quantity in the production run. A large order for that firm was 20 pieces. Usually it was just a handful of very expensive industrial machines
Bee
-
Exactly 96RAF.
The engineer who designs something must absolutely know how to put it together. Its a requirement of the position, be it models, automobiles or industrial machinery.
We were producing a first of a kind bit of kit. ~3.5M USD per. The technician was spending a dog's age putting in a screw. When I asked him about it, he handed me the screw. "You do it". ½ hour later, I recognized it was near impossible. I dragged the mechanical engineer out to the floor by his nose and handed him the screw. I ordered him to install it, being forbidden to leave until it was done. Eventually, he got it in place but stated that a redesign was clearly needed. Excellent observation (sarcasm).
Having access to the mechanical engineering team and designers would have made Jenny's task much, much easier. All the thinking part, of how to do it, goes away. Someone has already considered how to do it. Its just the doing part that is left, which is difficult enough as it is.
Bee
-
A gallon of water weights ~8.34 lbs
250 gallons × 8.34 pounds/gallon = 2084 pounds
1 tun weighs ~1 ton
Which, per the internet, is where the word "ton" is derived from: "tun"
Thanks Three Link! Learned something new today.
Bee
-
The R40438 Booth Carriage is now listed as "out of stock" ! It looks like it sold out on pre-order, as we just had notice of it coming into stock days ago.
For those who got one or more, like @LTSR_NSE, you did not miss out!
For those who sat on the fence? Better scoop one up from your favorite model shop, and soon.
Bee
-
1
-
-
Hi @threelink
Of course I will update with the completed article, but we have have long way to go yet.
The CAD stuff here is much more complicated than simple waggons or carriages. Its motorized, with working coupling and connecting rods.
It needs electrical power distribution and pickups. I have some ideas, but nothing has been installed in CAD, a major task.
I think of this CAD model as a proposal drawing, because many of the purchased Romford and Markits parts are not on hand. So I have "guessed some of the dimensions" which will need correcting when they are on hand
The good news: I think this model quite feasible. It can be made. I do not need to invent technical solutions, like my prior locomotive design.
Bee
-
1
-
Twin Sisters, using Romford / Markits parts
in General Discussion
Posted
Accurate assessment.
The foundational document of Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd is signed by four individuals
The first two will need no introduction. Take a careful look, these are authentic signatures, the document dated 23 June 1823.
The next signature is Edward Pease. He was the main promoter of the Stockton and Darlington Railway. His biography is quite impressive, Google away!
The last one is Michael Longridge, co-owner of the Bedlington Iron Works. With his engineer, Birkinshaw, the developer of wrought iron fish belly rails. With decades of experience by 1823. Supplier to the Stockton and Darlington Railway as well as the Liverpool and Manchester Railway.
So absolutely, yes, a Robert Stephenson and Co Ltd principal knew a thing or two about furnaces!
The Twin Sisters boiler is wildly inefficient. Without firetubes, the heating surface is limited to the conical area within the firebox. Most of the heat shoots straight up the chimney. It is hard to examine Twin Sisters without the lens of two centuries of knowledge.
It is one thing to polish a design, when a vast body of emperical data exists. Engineers like Stanier could stand on the shoulders the giants who came before. A tip of the cap to that type engineer, one who squeezes a bit more efficiency out of an existing design. Much harder than it looks.
The early days did not have that body of data. What worked? What didn't? What was efficient? Who knew anything. No wonder Rocket overcame San Pariel. The Booth firetubes were remarkably efficient compared to the return flue. Twin Sisters didn't even have a return flue. Essentially a teakettle in a fireplace.
Bee