don9f
Statesman
Les Warnett 9F, Martin Evans “Jinty”, a part built “Austin 7” and now a part built Springbok B1.
Posts: 960
|
Post by don9f on Feb 12, 2019 19:46:41 GMT
Yes that’s probably what concerns some people and it’s attachment is also something not easy to see or assess on visiting engines. That photo of my old hook shows a pretty poor shank and thread, which I wouldn’t accept today, yet it pulled hundreds of trains in its day without a problem! When the 9F was new, I was often encouraged to “give it the long handle”, a bizarre term for giving it some welly, to see what it could do!
Seriously though, the whole drawgear will only be as strong as it’s weakest link....to coin a phrase!
Cheers Don
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 12, 2019 20:25:34 GMT
Yes that’s probably what concerns some people and it’s attachment is also something not easy to see or assess on visiting engines. That photo of my old hook shows a pretty poor shank and thread, which I wouldn’t accept today, yet it pulled hundreds of trains in its day without a problem! When the 9F was new, I was often encouraged to “give it the long handle”, a bizarre term for giving it some welly, to see what it could do! Seriously though, the whole drawgear will only be as strong as it’s weakest link....to coin a phrase! Cheers Don It seems like it's probably sensible to have a few different options then, it would be a shame to arrive at a track and not be allowed on!
|
|
|
Post by 92220 on Feb 13, 2019 8:29:11 GMT
I got over the concern of using a 2BA thread and nut by making them out of EN24T, which is 44 tonne steel rather than EN1A which I think is 18-22 tonne. If I heat treated the hook and nut, I could increase the tensile strength up to 100 tonnes. You may think that EN24T is not nice stuff to work on but if you are happy machining silver steel or gauge plate, EN24T is much easier to machine.
Bob.
Edit: I wouldn't use the screw coupling though!!
|
|
oldnorton
Statesman
5" gauge LMS enthusiast
Posts: 696
|
Post by oldnorton on Feb 13, 2019 8:59:01 GMT
It seems like it's probably sensible to have a few different options then, it would be a shame to arrive at a track and not be allowed on! Yes I agree Roger. The reality is you might arrive somewhere new for a day out and that club has WRITTEN RULES on the type of coupling and the 'jobsworth' sticks to that, never mind how many Newtons the hook has been tested to. My only concern with hanging additional fitments onto a small hook is the addition of bending or twisting movements which the movement of carriages might impose. Then after an hour's running and flexing the high tensile hook fractures. The slot socket fitting, draw bar, 1/4" clevis pin and R-clip are also in use at our club. I also do a swap between that fitting and the hook when I want to by reaching underneath and removing the one bolt or nut. Both fittings have the same sized square shank. Norm
|
|
|
Post by Cro on Feb 13, 2019 15:10:40 GMT
Just a simple input, at Beech Hurst we use standard hooks as Roger has beautifully made and 3 link chain and we pull 4-6 car loads on just that and never has the club known an issue (not that I've ever heard of at least and I imagine if there had been we would be doing something different!).
Adam
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 13, 2019 16:08:05 GMT
Just a simple input, at Beech Hurst we use standard hooks as Roger has beautifully made and 3 link chain and we pull 4-6 car loads on just that and never has the club known an issue (not that I've ever heard of at least and I imagine if there had been we would be doing something different!). Adam Hi Adam, That's good to hear, that's exactly what we use and have never had any issues.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 13, 2019 17:07:04 GMT
I'd be interested to know what GL5 use since they're keen on things being like the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Feb 13, 2019 19:41:25 GMT
It would be a good idea if there was a national standard for coupling to carriages. Many owners take their locos to other clubs especially on open days, it could end up not having the correct connection
|
|
oldnorton
Statesman
5" gauge LMS enthusiast
Posts: 696
|
Post by oldnorton on Feb 13, 2019 19:41:31 GMT
I'd be interested to know what GL5 use since they're keen on things being like the real thing. Proper hooks and chains; no nasty drawbars connected to the first wagon or carriage!! But then we are not pulling any passengers (ever). But the issue of engine runaway is being discussed, with the concern of a break between locomotive and driving truck (it has happened). Additional safety chains/cables there are one option. Personally, I use a drawbar to connect the locomotive to the driving truck, and then the prototypical hook on the back of the driving truck to pull the rolling stock. Norm
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Feb 13, 2019 20:02:36 GMT
Having a reliable secondary coupling is essential in my view. A 5" 9F or similar sized loco becoming detached and f***ing of with the regulator wide open does not bear thinking about
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Feb 13, 2019 20:05:10 GMT
Hello everyone,
Norm's hit the nail on the head by saying}----"We are not pulling any passengers" ------because the requirement for drawbar coupler and pins was only ever meant to cover that particular application ie}---fare-paying members of the Public........and even then it's more to do with the H&S requirements that the operating club must adhere to.....
I totally support the idea that the GL5 lads are NOT using drawbars because by the same token I think that if allowed free reign the H&S "culture" would have ALL of us using them irrespective of application !!.......and there's already too much of that type of thinking going on as it is !!......................
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 13, 2019 20:37:53 GMT
All interesting and useful stuff about the couplings, lots to think about. Just so you can see what I'm up to, not slacking off, here's the work in progress that is the cab detail. This is proving to be extremely problematical, because the boiler is significantly longer than the full size one, so it projects too far into the cab. So although I have the Works Drawings for the floor layout, I'm having to take liberties with the dimensions to get the overall look right. The floor plates will all be given a raised chequer plate pattern, not shown here. There's a huge amount to do, with the injector water valves, the bypass and 3-way valve connections and reverser rod all needing attachments and routes out of the cab. Once all of these things have been decided, I need to take a long hard look at how the cab might be removed without it being a major task. Then there's the window frames and their fixing holes to be defined. Cab shell by Anne Froud, on Flickr
|
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Feb 13, 2019 22:17:49 GMT
Just a simple input, at Beech Hurst we use standard hooks as Roger has beautifully made and 3 link chain and we pull 4-6 car loads on just that and never has the club known an issue (not that I've ever heard of at least and I imagine if there had been we would be doing something different!). Adam FWIW... I like to think in terms of the critical link between loco and driver. If the driver is sitting on the tender, then a solid link between the two. If the driver is on the loco itself, nothing special needed. If the driver is on a carriage behind, as with Speedy and most raised-track trains, then a solid link connecting the two. It hardly matters if the driver's vehicle is then connected to the train behind with a bent safety-pin; the risks attending a breakage there are low. But a breakage between the loco and its controlling intelligence (?) could be extremely serious, as has been pointed out, and is eminently foreseeable, even if the likelihood (or experience) of it happening is not great. -Gary
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 14, 2019 9:21:27 GMT
Just a simple input, at Beech Hurst we use standard hooks as Roger has beautifully made and 3 link chain and we pull 4-6 car loads on just that and never has the club known an issue (not that I've ever heard of at least and I imagine if there had been we would be doing something different!). Adam FWIW... I like to think in terms of the critical link between loco and driver. If the driver is sitting on the tender, then a solid link between the two. If the driver is on the loco itself, nothing special needed. If the driver is on a carriage behind, as with Speedy and most raised-track trains, then a solid link connecting the two. It hardly matters if the driver's vehicle is then connected to the train behind with a bent safety-pin; the risks attending a breakage there are low. But a breakage between the loco and its controlling intelligence (?) could be extremely serious, as has been pointed out, and is eminently foreseeable, even if the likelihood (or experience) of it happening is not great. -Gary Hi Gary, I'm inclined to think that the solid coupling is an over reaction to incidents caused by poorly designed or weak couplings. I can see where they're coming from, it's easy to inspect and nobody gets their nose put out of joint by a subjective opinion about whether their coupling is man enough. In reality, there's no way a three link chain is going to jump off a deep hook, it's never going to happen. That could easily have been stipulated as the method except it still has the issue of needing to know that the hook isn't held on with gaffer tape. I just think it's a shame that we're stuck with a ghastly system that looks awful when a well designed hook is perfectly satisfactory. I don't have a problem with a safety chain if that's what it required to satisfy the Health and Safety people though.
|
|
|
Post by andyhigham on Feb 14, 2019 9:53:06 GMT
Most club tracks are dual gauge 3 1/2" and 5" (RVLS has 2 1/2" as well), this usually means two sets of coupling arrangements on the leading carriage. If running a 5" loco a safety chain or cable can be connected to the 3 1/2" connection or vice versa
|
|
stevep
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,070
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2019 15:03:09 GMT
I just think it's a shame that we're stuck with a ghastly system that looks awful when a well designed hook is perfectly satisfactory. I don't have a problem with a safety chain if that's what it required to satisfy the Health and Safety people though. Roger, I think that a full size man person (sorry Lisa) sitting behind a 5" gauge model of a locomotive is such an anomaly, the substitution of a bar coupling for a hook and 3 link chain is pretty insignificant. Our club (Tiverton) states that we must use bar couplings, and the retaining pins must be retained with a locking mechanism. I have used the clevis end with the clip-in pin (as illustrated before). Here is my driving trolley coupling, which includes an 'R' clip on the retaining pin: I have milled the slots at the correct height for 5" and 3 1/2" buffer beams/couplings, and also have 2 holes for the 3 1/2" coupling, for when the common rail is on the other side. A friend of mine has made something similar, which also includes holes for 2 1/2" couplings.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 14, 2019 15:14:31 GMT
Thanks for that Steve, that sort of pin seems to be popular solution to holding the coupling in place. I'll probably do the same.
|
|
uuu
Elder Statesman
your message here...
Posts: 2,816
Member is Online
|
Post by uuu on Feb 14, 2019 17:37:49 GMT
I'm not fond of the solid coupling on the overrun, as it can apply a sideways load to the back end of the engine. Buffers seem a better idea. When starting off, a loose-coupled train can also give a progressive start.
Wilf
|
|
barlowworks
Statesman
Now finished my other projects, Britannia here I come
Posts: 874
|
Post by barlowworks on Feb 14, 2019 18:15:07 GMT
I'm not fond of the solid coupling on the overrun, as it can apply a sideways load to the back end of the engine. Buffers seem a better idea. When starting off, a loose-coupled train can also give a progressive start. Wilf I suppose the other thing to bear in mind is that most passenger carrying vehicles have no buffing gear relying on a rigid coupling to keep the vehicles appart.
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Feb 14, 2019 19:10:44 GMT
I'm not fond of the solid coupling on the overrun, as it can apply a sideways load to the back end of the engine. Buffers seem a better idea. When starting off, a loose-coupled train can also give a progressive start. Wilf I suppose the other thing to bear in mind is that most passenger carrying vehicles have no buffing gear relying on a rigid coupling to keep the vehicles appart. Is that the usual case? We have three link chains between all of the carriages.
|
|