Loco plans

[ron]

alanstepney said:

agatehouse said:

Ron
If you have the errors documented you might drop Alan Stepney a line. He has an errata section on his website which might just save future builders some heartache.

www.alanstepney.info/page45.html

I discovered it just in time for my Rob Roy and was very glad I did!

Unless Andy wants to start such a section of course.

I am always glad to get more input, which, as Andrew said, can help other builders avoid problems and perhaps expense.

I thought about this but wondered if it might just cause more confusion, because the mistakes depend on which set of drawings the person has, plus there is the set of articles in ME on improvements to Simplex which further complicates the problem.
Ron

PS Sorry if this is getting a bit off topic.

[lostinclagg]

tb,

I also have been in this hobby a long time, and Princess Marina was my first loco. I also think it was a good choice, one I have not regretted; I started with some steel offcuts and a saw. We have several in the club, they will haul a couple of passengers and can be given a good thrashing if driven properly. Just good to know you want to get stuck in and build.

LBSC got it right (apart from a tweak to the slide valve length) and it's not overladen with complex bits that just distract from getting your engine on the track (there are plenty of other distractions at your age). Older people may enjoy the workshop, but when I was building mine I just wanted it finished so I could steam it.

You must also build what YOU want - or you won't finish it; something to teach you the skills, that is affordable, and transportable and will work; then big locos can come later, (though just personally I wouldn't touch a Sweet Pea or Simplex). My cab, running boards, cladding and tender are all steel, so minimal cost. PM - go for it.

[tbsteam]

I don't suppose you have a copy of the drawings as i am trying to save as much as i can.

Cheers
tb

[hat]

I have been watching this thread and will add my "two pennyworth"
Firstly don't be put off, select something to build that you think will keep your interest because these are not ten minute projects.
Get as much information out of Grandad and anybody else who shows interest - you will find that these are the gems you don't find in books. There has been plenty of advice on what to build so I wont go there! But once you have decided try to find out known errors in the drawings - I am building Rob Roy currently and although its been around for +30 years there are still errors in the drawings- for me what is unforgivable is that none of the drawings for various locos I have seen seem to have any change control on them. In my industry this would be totally unacceptable. Take your time think every step through, my old dad used to say "build each component in your head", there is no single "right way" but what is paramount is to keep safe, we only get one chance with eyes and fingers. More than anything, enjoy every minute of this great hobby- good luck!

[lostinclagg]

Sorry tb,

I borrowed some drawings and they got returned, but otherwise I worked from the book.

However if you do get to build one, I will dig out my worthwhile mods to the axle pump.

[tbsteam]

I will definatley be building one so those mods would be excellent.

Hopefully i will be getting a virtually rolling chassis in a few days. ;D

Cheers
tb

[tbsteam]

I didn't get the princess marina.

Would anybody say it would be a bad idea to build a Lickham/Lifford Hall?

[circlip]

Just to expand on Hats' comments re drawing correction regimes, for many years one of my responsibilities at a fabrication company I worked for, was to VERIFY customer drawings. This was to make sure that we could actually manufacture what the pictures described. A stack of funnies hit the desk one morning from our national loco manufacturing organization for the supply of pipe fabrications for the disposal of "waste "products to a chassis mounted collection tank. The first job was to redraw the bits to our own system for our guys to make. After about an hour on the board ( propper longhand drawing, not yer bl**dy namby pamby Autocad )it became apparent that the said fabrication couldn't be made. So after a site visit, a quick fight with their own drawing office, tape measure and verification of the salient points of contact of the pipe connections under the loco, it was back home to redraw. The proving set of pipework could virtually be thrown into position and fixed. On future visits "on site"for other jobs, when the fitters found out what company I worked for they said that in ALL the years that this unit had been built they had NEVER had pipework easier to fit than ours, other suppliers work had to be re-cut and welded to make it fit. This was in the late eighties, and the original drawings were dated the early sixties. The first thing is that, given the size of the customers drawing office and the number of draughtsmen they employed, I don't believe that when the first unit was being made in house that someone didn't send a "sketch" back to the DO to get the drawings modded. Bits of paper get lost, memories get fuddled with other "important" issues and it's easy to loose track of little problems. How many drawists did OUR model plan company employ in its' heyday, and how many projects were on the go at the same time? It's SO frustrating when we make a bit in the comfort of our workshops to then turn the air blue cos the bl**dy designer has put a wrong dimension on a drawing. It took nearly thirty years to get British Rail bits right via a little tinpot fabrication company with bu**er all resources in comparison to sort their problems. Note I said longhand on the drawing saga, with the pampering electronic drawing programmes of today, it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to dimension parts that won't fit together THEORETICALLY. I say this cos what lots of people tend to forget is that in our hobby a certain amount of FITTING is required, take note "Kit builders", you can have all the bits fit together without having to mod them,but how much do you want to pay for the pleasure? To the DRO and electronic whizz bang brigade, you can set the slides to a tenth of a thou. and you'll STILL have to give the bit a lick with a file to make it FIT. The first job that Vale seem to be doing is to redraw Stuarts' drawings, why? hundreds of engines have been built from the originals? The new drawings I've seen seem to be a lot clearer. Don't shoot the draughtsman, cos at the end of the day he can only sort the dimensions if HE is given the information. Just to waken up everyone after this diatribe, How many of you have sent complaints back to uncle bill about the operating system we use daily? Every few years we are supposed to change our operating systems to a "new" all singing and dancing system that successively costs twice the amount of the previous one, to be then told to modify it with updates, and just as we get settled down and confident, here comes the new Zootmobile system? Rave over, Best wishes Ian.

[havoc]

Ian, I understand you very well. But you have to realise that in this hobby there are more model machine operators than model engineers and even less model draughtsmen. Making a plan fit for fabrication is something that requires experience and knowledge of fabrication techniques. Drafting a plan for a piece that will be milled or for the same piece in injection molding isn't the same plan.

As far as kits go: if you have to do more than give the occasional edge a quick lick of the file then there is something wrong. Most plans around are for the occasional single piece build. But if you go to kits, then it is implied that you will make a series and then the plans should be made for it. If you need to machine a piece of a kit then the design is wrong. (unless of course it was meant to be that way like bending plate or so)

I have said it before here and will repeat it: there should be no need to work at 0.0001 of whatever units in this hobby. There are exceptions of course but it shouldn't be the norm.

I never complained to uncle bill since I don't use his (fill in expletive of choice).

[circlip]

Sorry Havok just re-read my original paragraph, it wasn't that the fabrication couldn't be made, it was that it didn't fit. Later I stated cut and reweld. I wasn't knocking the kit bashers, but to try and draw a simile, it took many years in the horological manufacturing industries to make "interchangeable" parts for watch repairs,(Oh yes we used to be able to repair watches, but they were mechanical) and this was due to being able to make hundreds of thousands of each component to tight tolerances. If you want to be able to chuck a toy train together from a bag of bits then you should expect to pay a lot more than you do at the moment.Drawings are drawings and if they don't work it's because some of the dimensions are wrong, you also seem to not understand the difference between a draughtsman and a designer, there IS one. Unfortunately toy engineering falls between mold making ( one off tool drawing) and production engineering (many thousands of bits) After being "Promoted" to the DO as an apprentice (underpaid slave) I was a draughtsman, but aspired to become a designer after years gaining experience and qualifications.You obviously didn't grasp what I said about drawing mechanisms, when were the originals of the plans drawn? No autocad then. We now have spellcheck but to read some of the postings you wouldn't think so.
Just to try another simile, if you bought a plastic kit for a Spitfire, would you expect it to look like the picture on box with the application of ONLY a tube of glue and a few tins of paint?

[havoc]

Yes Ian, I do understand the difference between the designer and the draughtsman. (it is fading with cadcam but that is another discussion) I also got your point about the piece that was plainly wrong but the changes never made it to the reference drawing but each piece got re-made to fit. Since the introduction of ISO9002 that shouldn't happen anymore. Right? (didn't find a smiley for sarcasm)

But you do not seem to understand my point: if something like a kit doesn't fit it is because the design isn't right. It hasn't been designed to be made in series as a kit for a customer that has nothing more than a set of screwdrivers, a spanner and a file. A well designed kit that has been designed for the fabrication techniques (and tolerances) used and with the skills of the customers taken into account should just fit. I accept to deburr an edge or pass a reamer through a hole but nothing more should be needed. I'm not talking about setting up the distribution, bending a plate, painting etc. Prototyping is expensive but letting your customers do this for you could be more expensive in the long run.

I agree with your putting model engineering between mold making and production, but if you want to offer kits then it is production and you should not let your customers bear your inability to design for production. Likewise should plans in magazines be drawn as mold tooling plans, for a one-off. I get irritated when looking at plans that have too many dimensions on them or where the dimensions don't take into account function or cumulative tolerances.

[circlip]

Oh dear Havok, we don't live in utopia, "If parts of a kit don't fit together......" You're too young to remember the first AIRFIX model kits. At the time they were the only thing available to be able to make a quick reasonable model, the bits fitted together reasonably, what did you expect for two bob?(10p) BUT with a bit of care you could make a GOOD facsimile.When the better Japanese kits started to arrive, in an attempt to combat the flood, Airfix sub conned. the molding and cos the only way to stand still on costs was to increase the production rate the molding fit suffered due to faster mold cycling times. If yer open the tool before the molding has had time to cool the bit distorts and is a bitch to fit together. This is NOT due to bad design but COMMERCIALISM, forget the employees, at the end of the day, the SHAREHOLDERS have to receive a yearly increased dividend. I reiterate, how much do you want to pay? With your logic of a screwdriver, a file and a few spanners I suggest that you NEVER buy a kit for a flying toy aircraft or a sailing toy boat cos your going to be AWFULLY frustrated at what you have to do to get them to operate, why should toy engines be any different?
Glad you mentioned ISO9002, before that it was ISO9001 and before that it was BS5750, YES they were ALL on the information box of the original drawing. I could never understand why you had to employ someone to implement a set of rules into a company to ensure that you made bits to the customer drawings using the materials they specified. If I want to buy a Rolls made out of metal, I don't expect to be supplied with a Mini made from chocolate?
Not many Draughtmen left, no that's right, they used to have to take the Designers thumbnail and fag packet sketches and turn them into working drawings for production. Thanks to this stupid thing that you a I are having a difference of opinion on, the putor, they aren't needed any more, why? Oh yes, a cost saving. Also, in communicating in this way, you and I are helping to close down paper mills,pen and ink suppliers,Post offices etc. but hey, what the hell, it's CHEAPER.
Also glad you mentioned too MANY dimensions on drawings. On one hand we need to supply machined parts that can be thrown together from two metres and expected to work due to someones inability to "fit" the parts, and on the other you don't want the information supplied cos there's too much? Mek thi mind up lad! If there isn't enough info you have to ASSUME. Have you never heard the term "the ass in assume is U"
Just to close out the fabrication saga, when we were supplying the second set of 49 units on a new contract, head office in Derby requested a set of our drawings. A month later a big "URGENT" envelope arrived on the desk containing a set of new drawings for the manufacture of this pipework, with an enclosed letter that said unless the bits were made to the dimensions on the enclosed drawings, they would be rejected at their goods inwards. After a frantic checking session, it became apparent that the bast4rds had redrawn MY drawings onto their own system, and no it wasn't a joke letter.

[tbsteam]

What about the Lickham/Lifford Hall?

[alanstepney]

Just as an example of what can be done, OS have been producing superb models and kits for many years, and yet I have never seen or heard any complaints or even comments about their parts not fitting together.

In an ideal world, wherever that may be, all drawings and kits would be as good.

[circlip]

I didn't mention OS Alan, for the simple reason, I have never heard of ANY controversial comments, apart from the cost when the Porter first came out. At the time, you could virtually equip a workshop for the price. The ORIGINAL cheque book "KIT" ;D

[cotswold]

agatehouse said:

Ron
If you have the errors documented you might drop Alan Stepney a line. He has an errata section on his website which might just save future builders some heartache.

www.alanstepney.info/page45.html

....

Wow! I have just seen my own contribution to that site (Don Young Hunslet)! It was so long ago that I had forgotten all about it. If Alan is still maintaining those pages I shall be happy to make some corrections and some additions.

[alanstepney]

I am, and would be pleased to receive any updates or additional information.

It is surprising how often I get emails from people thanking me for what is on those pages.

[cotswold]

alanstepney said:

I am, and would be pleased to receive any updates or additional information.

It is surprising how often I get emails from people thanking me for what is on those pages.

Shall do! If all goes well I hope to have my first steaming next week (or if truth be told second attempt at steaming).

[AndrewP]

First steaming - deep joy! we've simply got to see pictures of that, it'll be a long time till my Hunslet sees steam