The best loco plans?

[David]

There are endless stories of sets of plans that are full of mistakes.

But what about good designs?

Has anyone made a loco to a commercial set of plans without too many mistakes or omissions getting in the way?

There seems to be a whole different world of designs in the US based upon reading Live Steam magazine. Any US members have experience of Allen Models etc?

[uuu]

Ken Swan has a reputation for excellent drawings. I'm building Jessie - the sheets are logically laid out and very clear. The frames have all the holes marked! There's a chart for all the pipe lengths, unions etc. They're very good.

Wilf

Edit (following kipford/Dave's note below)

All the fastenings are described, including where small heads or high-tensile are expected.

[kipford]

David
I am a fair way through my Don Young Aspinall build. So far so good. The basic design seems sound and I redrew the complete loco in 3D before commencing the build, not finding any real errors. My only complaints would be:
1 The dimensioning is a bit dodgy in places. Not wrong dimensions, but not using functional ones. Also no dims for positioning major parts like the boiler, you have to work that out.
2 Very little info on what fasteners to use.
3 A lack of assy views showing how things go together. My 3D model is a godsend for that.

Dave

[andyhigham]

I rate Kozo Hiraoka's publications.
As he writes the description of his build, he has two independent builders follow his plans and build the loco. Any mistakes or amendments can be made before publication. These independent builds also provide photographs.
Complicated tasks are broken down into simple steps and explained, eg a 3 cylinder shay crankshaft with Stephensons valve gear machined out of one piece! That will be 10 different axes for the crank pins, eccentrics and main bearings

[andyhigham]

It really annoys me that suppliers are running prints of error ridden drawings and charging top money.
A huge A0 sheet with numerous parts hardly has a fighting chance of reaching the end of the build in a legible state. All drawings should be A4 with the minimum number of parts on each, that way they can be laminated to keep them clean. Ideally the drawings should be available as PDFs to print at home.
Don't get me started on fractional measurements and lack of tolerances on drawings GRRRRRR!!!!!

[rrmrd66]

Mar 25, 2021 16:11:31 GMT andyhigham said:

It really annoys me that suppliers are running prints of error ridden drawings and charging top money.
A huge A0 sheet with numerous parts hardly has a fighting chance of reaching the end of the build in a legible state. All drawings should be A4 with the minimum number of parts on each, that way they can be laminated to keep them clean. Ideally the drawings should be available as PDFs to print at home.
Don't get me started on fractional measurements and lack of tolerances on drawings GRRRRRR!!!!!

100% agree

Malcolm

[andyhigham]

I would also add that flat parts like frames or cab parts should also be supplied as a .dxf file to facilitate laser cutting

[92220]

Hi Andy.

That's a nice idea but unfortunately not practical for the model engineering market. Also; unfortunately few drawings were/are produced by qualified draughtsmen, and most designs are so old that the dimensions are fractional because the person who drew them probably didn't use anything other than fractions themselves. Also, the size of drawings probably goes back to the old imperial standard for sheet sizes. I think the best size would actually be A1.

I'm afraid, having a minimum number of parts on a single A4 sheet, would not be practical, as drawing sets are all on large sheets now, with many items per sheet, and there is nobody to copy them off the large sheets and redraw them on A4. With the likelyhood of items being forgotten to be copied over, more errors would occur than there are on the drawings now. I can't see drawings ever being available in digital form either as it is too easy to copy them and pass them on to friends. Thus the seller then loses business. It's all down to commercialism.

Bob.

[andyhigham]

If they only used fractions they either never picked up a micrometer or vernier caliper so probably never built a working loco Or decided to make life difficult for the builder

[Deleted]

Some interesting comments here... as far as I'm concerned when it comes to who's the 'best' it has to be Don Young. I have heard many other fellow model engineers say this too. His 'Doncaster' drawings are particularly good, not just in lack of errors but also in his faithful accuracy to the prototype. He does have a few advantages though, he was a trained draughtsman, he did his apprentiship on such locos and has had a lot of input on the design from ex railwaymen from that era who knew the subject matter very well. He's not immune to silly things though, he has a bad habit of showing the wrong elevation which can complicate things a little. In as far as measurements are concerned, he uses decimal, fractions and metric, I have no issue using any of these and often jump between all 3 in my writeups.

Pete

[John Baguley]

I have to agree that Don's drawings are pretty good. Having done quite a bit of CAD stuff for Pete I haven't found many 'questionable' dimensions on the Doncaster drawings unlike some of the other designers drawings that I've worked with!

I'm the drawings archivist for the N25GA and all our drawings are now scanned into digital format so they can be printed out to order. However, I won't supply digital copies of the drawings because of the risk of them being pirated, although there is nothing to stop someone buying copies and then scanning them themselves. There used to be a chap on Ebay who was selling multiple sets of drawings that were Reeves copyright and it was obvious that he was copying them and then selling them.

Most of our drawings are from the Henry Greenly/LBSC era so are dimensioned in fractions with only critical dimensions being in decimal as all drawings were at the time. Any drawings that I do for myself I use decimal but still imperial as that is what I prefer even though I am just as 'fluent' in metric. However, at the moment I'm working on a new loco project for the N25GA and that will be all metric to try and cater for the later generation.

I'm afraid if you want to build the older designs then you are stuck with imperial/ fractions etc. unless you are prepared to redraw them yourself. It's no good expecting someone else to spend hundreds of hours doing it. The various companies that sell the drawings certainly aren't interested in doing it. It just wouldn't be profitable for them.

John

[Gary L]

Mar 25, 2021 7:20:42 GMT uuu said:

Ken Swan has a reputation for excellent drawings. I'm building Jessie - the sheets are logically laid out and very clear. The frames have all the holes marked! There's a chart for all the pipe lengths, unions etc. They're very good.

Wilf

Edit (following kipford/Dave's note below)

All the fastenings are described, including where small heads or high-tensile are expected.

I agree; Ken’s drawings are superb, even more so since they date from the pre-digital era. Digital doesn’t guarantee perfect drawings by any means, but it does at least reduce errors of arithmetic that plague the Paddington drawings. Ken took a real pride in his work; most of drawings for my Bridget are individually signed and/or or stamped by him.

Gary

[dscott]

EXACTLY!!!





I have worked with all sorts of Drawings all my Professional life and do them as part of this Hobby.

Photo 1 is my version of Twin Sisters and Asia.
Both lovely models but I have only managed to count 10 of each in 50 years of interest.

Photo 2 Was my realization that the plans only out 56 years had not completely been amended.
They return as a 2 F Dock Tank to avoid confusion with a Jinty boiler.

Photo 3 Is my almost to SCALE 1500 in 5 inch gauge. Done from Paddington Drawings double checked and scaled
with the full size 1501 and many Photographs. Close collaboration with Roger of course.


Recomended Locomotives with nice Drawings!

Jessie you just go and make the parts and fit them. Superb drawings. Polly do these. Reeves Castings. Bridget Boiler just been in Model Engineer. The two Locomotives share many parts including the Boiler.

* 5700 Doug Hewsons latest computer drawings. Parts from The Steam Workshop. Build series current in Model Engineer.
Usefull bits for other GWR locomotives. Doug is a lovely Guy and met up with him several times over the years.

Class 2. Again an easy one Don Young with drawings in 7 1/4" From D. Stockings to get her to scale. Tender from Model Engineers Laser. 400 ish photos of the twins on the Great Central now supplied to two other builders.

Black Five. Some design details need changing... 34 6 BA bolts round the base of the smokebox to remove if you need to get it off.
All parts covered by Model Engineers Laser. Reeves for drawings. Castings from Blackgates.

Midge. D. Stockings 7 1/4" 1101 Class GWR Avonside 0-4-0 a nice solid lump. Lovely drawings. www.horleyminaturelocomotives.com

Large Prairie 5101 Class. Green or Black. 13 highly detailed drawings incredibly close to scale. Yes I have one 4121. Reeves never offered to supply joggled frames which need a cutout by the steps. Heat and a 20 ton press!!!

517 Class. Fair Rosamunde 0-4-2 Early version of the 1400 but with an open cab. Poly models Practical Scale. The Wheel castings are superb and a tribute to CNC and Solidworks!!! He hints.



Midge. Yes someone did a 5" Gauge version in 1947. Someone will have to do a conversion from the Big Set of drawings sometime.
Nice size and quite simple. Dreams of a nice photo of the pair together, interesting perspective.

David and Lily.

* 5700 the only one I am not building!!!

[Neale]

I use a couple of the techniques already mentioned. You can always get original drawings scanned to PDF by one of the high-street copy shops. I was lucky that my son could get this done where he works but either way it does allow you to preserve those originals. It's easy enough then to extract individual components from the drawings as required and print on A4 for workshop use. You can also scribble "useful" dimensions and notes on them - the designer's dimensions might not suit your way of working. In practice, though, most of my "drawings" come from the 3D model I have been building, partly to help visualisation and partly to check for errors. If DY had used 3D CAD, he wouldn't have drawn the tender wheels clashing with a drag beam! From the 3D model I often go directly to CNC so no traditional drawings needed - and as my CAD software accepts metric, imperial, or fractional dimensions, I don't really care what was used originally.

Most of the drawings we all still use were produced when the highest tech available to the draughtsman was a parallel-motion drawing board. So, errors were easily made as the drawing was an engineering/manufacturing drawing. It would have dimensions referenced to one datum edge, maybe, because that's what the guy making it needed. What it did not necessarily represent was the "design intent." For example, the design intent might be "align this hole in part A with that hole in part B." But it is shown by two dimensions in two drawings, probably modified to give dimensions from different reference points. Probably OK when first drawn - but then something gets modified and a knock-on dimension change is overlooked and the design intent is no longer observed. CAD, these days, can let you include design intent in the model and changes in one component can automatically generate the knock-on changes. As a later, separate, step, you produce manufacturing drawings with datum-referenced dimensions to taste. Getting people to recognise the difference between design intent and manufacturing drawings is a big issue when trying to teach experienced "traditional" draughtsmen to use CAD!

And I haven't even mentioned how trivially easy it is to generate isometric views, incredibly useful when dealing with complex components/assemblies!

[kipford]

Neale
Totally agree with you, particularly the design intent. I spent 40 years in the Aerospace industry (it is the same problem whether using a drawing board or CAD) fighting to get people to appreciate this!
Dave

[coniston]

Mar 26, 2021 2:21:07 GMT dscott said:

I have worked with all sorts of Drawings all my Professional life and do them as part of this Hobby.


* 5700 Doug Hewsons latest computer drawings. Parts from The Steam Workshop. Build series current in Model Engineer.
Usefull bits for other GWR locomotives. Doug is a lovely Guy and met up with him several times over the years.



* 5700 the only one I am not building!!!

Sorry David I cannot agree with you on Doug Hewson 5700, just bought three drawings (GA, boiler, back head and fittings) to help in a more scale rebuild of a Pansy. All three show some pretty major errors, omission, duplications and worst of all assumptions. Considering these are a modern new design done on CAD I am pretty disappointed, I assume only 2D CAD as there is no way these could come from a 3D model. And yes I do know how to draw myself, apprenticed as draughtsman in the days of pencil/pen and film before moving into CAD in it's various guises. Not to mention spending many years responsible for checking and approving designs / drawings. I am getting the feeling that the 5700 has been rushed a bit and not up to what we have come to expect from Doug, sorry I cannot recommend this design based on what I have so far seen.

Chris D

[uuu]

I see Roger is having an issue on his Speedy thread, because the springs have not been fully specified!

Wilf

[dscott]

Mar 26, 2021 20:48:28 GMT coniston said:

Mar 26, 2021 2:21:07 GMT dscott said:

I have worked with all sorts of Drawings all my Professional life and do them as part of this Hobby.


* 5700 Doug Hewsons latest computer drawings. Parts from The Steam Workshop. Build series current in Model Engineer.
Usefull bits for other GWR locomotives. Doug is a lovely Guy and met up with him several times over the years.



* 5700 the only one I am not building!!!

Sorry David I cannot agree with you on Doug Hewson 5700, just bought three drawings (GA, boiler, back head and fittings) to help in a more scale rebuild of a Pansy. All three show some pretty major errors, omission, duplications and worst of all assumptions. Considering these are a modern new design done on CAD I am pretty disappointed, I assume only 2D CAD as there is no way these could come from a 3D model. And yes I do know how to draw myself, apprenticed as draughtsman in the days of pencil/pen and film before moving into CAD in it's various guises. Not to mention spending many years responsible for checking and approving designs / drawings. I am getting the feeling that the 5700 has been rushed a bit and not up to what we have come to expect from Doug, sorry I cannot recommend this design based on what I have so far seen.

Chris D

This is such a shame as the few drawings I have seemed to be superb. Possibly old age and the effects of the Stroke do not help!
Good thing I am not building one.
Feedback to THE STEAM WORKSHOP.

Removed from the LIST until amended!!

David and Lily.

[dscott]

I always had problems with one Guys drawings when at Thorn Lighting in the Prototyping Shop.
(Yes I still have the second or third first made 2 D light bulb.)
Urgent job so I punched and pressed and drilled various holes in the new trays 10 or 20 off all morning and left them.
Boss was upset, my boss was upset and mate Chris was in Hysterics...
I sat and waited.
He was late back from Lunch. 29 pence for beans on toast and discount from anything Thorn and Philips made!!
"YOU HAVEN'T....... FOLDED THEM.....
YET!!!" he gasped running in past both bosses.
Which way up this time please. I asked.
He turned the stack over and I folded them on two set up fly presses.
We had 6 of the beasts.

His boss said many words un printable to him and left with the box for another mad drive up to Spennymore County Durham from Enfield.
DRAWINGS. And these were on early CAD.
Happy days.

David and Lily.

[44767]

Mar 25, 2021 18:58:21 GMT andyhigham said:

I would also add that flat parts like frames or cab parts should also be supplied as a .dxf file to facilitate laser cutting

I'm not sure I agree with you here. If someone has gone to the trouble of designing a model with accurate drawings, why would he give the IP to someone else?