uuu
Elder Statesman
your message here...
Posts: 2,856
|
Post by uuu on Mar 15, 2014 17:03:10 GMT
I've started to read through your Wiki. You seem to have one hand tied behind your back with Speedy. Commenting that the drawings don't show all the holes in the frames is priceless. The contrast with the drawings for "Jessie" couldn't be greater. Ken Swan is SO thorough.
Wilf
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Mar 15, 2014 17:06:52 GMT
Roger, the link on this thread works OK, but the one on your Wiki thread des not work for me. Try that, I've just done it again. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Mar 15, 2014 17:15:39 GMT
I've started to read through your Wiki. You seem to have one hand tied behind your back with Speedy. Commenting that the drawings don't show all the holes in the frames is priceless. The contrast with the drawings for "Jessie" couldn't be greater. Ken Swan is SO thorough. Wilf Do let me know or fix anything that's clearly wrong on the Wiki, it's not mine, it's a community thing I happen to have started. To say that SPEEDY's drawings are vague about detail would be something of an understatement. I can see that LBSC didn't want to make it more complicated than needs be, and put people off making it, but I think this is going too far. I tried 3D modelling the cab but gave up because there's very little to go on. I'll sort that out when I get to it! Still, the Wiki is an opportunity for anyone who's making one to put the record straight and make like easier for all concerned. If it's easy for people to add something that will help, then hopefully they'll take the trouble to do it. Any chance of your starting one for your own project? I'm sure there are a few wrinkles and things that could be shared with other builders, however well it's drawn. It doesn't have to be pretty, it's about the information, not an exercise in Graphic Design. Cheers, Roger |
|
Geoff
Hi-poster
Posts: 171 
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 17, 2014 5:52:12 GMT
Hi Geoff I am also busy with a Maid of Kent and I am busy re doing the drawings in 3D cad. Mail me and with more details and I will check the cad drawings I am busy with.Does your loco have the inside or outside valves. Are you building to the new joy valve drawings? Hi Ken, I have finally managed top get hold of Model Engineer vol135 #3380 pg 1066 7-20 November 1969 .... information provided previously by Bruce. Thanks Bruce. This little two part article is a mine of information and Don confrms in this that there is a clash between the bogie and the axlepump. Unfortunately, I have just finished my axlepump which I shall probably have to ditch!  Maybe I can modify it to use in the tender as a hand pump. I shall also have to re-make all of the valve gear.(the un-smiley face isn't grumpy enough to use here) On the plus side .... at least I haven't wasted any time trying to get the valve events of the LBSC arrangement to work. Geoff |
|
Geoff
Hi-poster
Posts: 171
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 17, 2014 6:00:00 GMT
I know I'm in danger of being known for banging on about this, but until individual builders take this into their own hands and contribute to a knowledge base then it will always be so. It's a waste of time complaining to anyone or posting things on Forums where these corrections will surely be lost in time. If you're going to build this locomotive then please start a Wiki along the lines of the one I've started for SPEEDY, don't leave it for someone else to do. It's really easy and everyone can contribute their own information because nobody owns the wiki. Take a look at the one I started here and you'll see what I mean. You're right Roger ... We do need to start another Wiki. The only trouble I have at the moment is that I am so much of a beginner in this hobby that I don't know when I have found a mistake, or made one myself. The ever present danger is people with a little knowledge believing they know it all. Are all the Speedy Wiki posts vetted by anyone for accuracy? |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Mar 17, 2014 8:00:04 GMT
I know I'm in danger of being known for banging on about this, but until individual builders take this into their own hands and contribute to a knowledge base then it will always be so. It's a waste of time complaining to anyone or posting things on Forums where these corrections will surely be lost in time. If you're going to build this locomotive then please start a Wiki along the lines of the one I've started for SPEEDY, don't leave it for someone else to do. It's really easy and everyone can contribute their own information because nobody owns the wiki. Take a look at the one I started here and you'll see what I mean. You're right Roger ... We do need to start another Wiki. The only trouble I have at the moment is that I am so much of a beginner in this hobby that I don't know when I have found a mistake, or made one myself. The ever present danger is people with a little knowledge believing they know it all. Are all the Speedy Wiki posts vetted by anyone for accuracy? Hi Geoff, I hear what you're saying, but anything you have difficulty with as a beginner is likely to cause the same trouble for anyone else who's new. I don't think it matters if what you post in a Wiki is common knowledge or 'obvious' to a seasoned builder, it's exactly those things that people don't tend to mention. All Wiki's are completely open without moderation so you have to assume that they could be wrong. The more people that contribute to them, the less likely it is that errors will be allowed to persist. Dug started to get involved with mine and quickly spotted an error on the buffer that I'd redesigned. Nothing is written there in stone, anyone can come along and freely edit something. This is great if someone has passed on and errors are found in their contribution. Because I've had such a big hand in SPEEDY's wiki, I feel responsible for it and so I tidy up anything that's added to make the formatting consistent. In the end, it's the content that's important, not the visual side so don't think it has to look professional. The way I've done it is really simple but there are a few tricks to make it look better. If you go into the Source View while you're editing, you can see where pictures, text and headings are and switch them round by cutting and pasting to get things clearer. I'm afraid HTML is a complete mess, and although these tools try to make it easier, I often find that the preview looks nothing like how it was shown when it was edited. So I do think it would be great to get another Wiki under way for your build. If you're unsure how to do that, just PM me with the basic information about the locomotive and a couple of pictures, and I'll kick start it for you. Actually, I've just read back through Ken's reply and he may already have done that for your's. Obviously we don't want to start two, so perhaps you can tie up with him and let me have the URL so I can add the link to my list. |
|
|
|
Post by KennLindeman on Mar 17, 2014 13:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Mar 17, 2014 13:32:58 GMT
Hi Ken, That's a good start, and somewhere to begin adding whatever comes up in your build. I don't think it matters what stage of the build you're at, just add what you can whenever you find something useful to share. Plans are not always easy to interpret, so close up shots of different stages in the build are always useful. I think people would be particularly interested in how you make certain parts and with what equipment. I'd be inclined to add a new page for each section ie Brakes, Axles or whatever so it makes it readable. I don't know if there's an easier way to do the indexing, but I added a link to each new page manually at the bottom of the first page. That seems a bit clumsy but it works until I find a better way. Take a look at the source view when you edit the pages. You'll see that new major headings are defined ==Like this== with the = sign twice. That's an easy way to add a new sub section to a page. I tend to switch between the visual and the source views to try to get it to behave and look tidy. It's not always easy to make it look neat and to get the pictures to the right size. Have a look at the source on one of my pages and you'll see that it only consists of the ==headers==, the body text, and the picture links. If you put the picture links at the top of the section, the text ends up next to it on the left. That seems to work pretty well. Anyway, it's the content that matters. Let me know if you want me to play around with it visually once you get a bit more on there. The main thing is that you've started something and it's somewhere everyone can put their thoughts and pictures. I've just added it to my Wiki list and tested the link. |
|
|
|
Post by peter99 on Mar 17, 2014 21:21:17 GMT
I know I'm in danger of being known for banging on about this, but until individual builders take this into their own hands and contribute to a knowledge base then it will always be so. It's a waste of time complaining to anyone or posting things on Forums where these corrections will surely be lost in time. If you're going to build this locomotive then please start a Wiki along the lines of the one I've started for SPEEDY, don't leave it for someone else to do. It's really easy and everyone can contribute their own information because nobody owns the wiki. I quite agree with your suggestions Roger, as even in a perfect world where independent checkers check original drawings before issue, errors in drawings will creep in and it is is must that these errors should be known. It is that I just that find is so annoying that drawings are being published where it is obvious that that they have not been checked for errors. Also, how a reasonable complicated assembly drawing, like a working steam loco is without a Parts List! How can the designer/publisher know otherwise that he has included for all items? There is no doubt, IMO, that the ME world UK except standards of drawings which would not be acceptable in the outside engineering world. Model Engineering Magazines in the UK must be aware of this and it is about time they did something about it! |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Mar 17, 2014 21:53:52 GMT
I know I'm in danger of being known for banging on about this, but until individual builders take this into their own hands and contribute to a knowledge base then it will always be so. It's a waste of time complaining to anyone or posting things on Forums where these corrections will surely be lost in time. If you're going to build this locomotive then please start a Wiki along the lines of the one I've started for SPEEDY, don't leave it for someone else to do. It's really easy and everyone can contribute their own information because nobody owns the wiki. I quite agree with your suggestions Roger, as even in a perfect world where independent checkers check original drawings before issue, errors in drawings will creep in and it is is must that these errors should be known. It is that I just that find is so annoying that drawings are being published where it is obvious that that they have not been checked for errors. Also, how a reasonable complicated assembly drawing, like a working steam loco is without a Parts List! How can the designer/publisher know otherwise that he has included for all items? There is no doubt, IMO, that the ME world UK except standards of drawings which would not be acceptable in the outside engineering world. Model Engineering Magazines in the UK must be aware of this and it is about time they did something about it! Hi Peter, I accept that many of these drawings go back 40 or 50 years, but I think it's the responsibility of those who are still pedalling them to at least collate the errors. Still, it's not going to happen and that's why I'm doing my bit to at least get a system in place where we can all deposit what we find and draw on a wealth of experience. The more Wiki's we can get under way the easier it will be for everyone. I like the idea that both expert and novice can both contribute looking at problems from their different perspectives. We all have such different equipment and experience, there's no single correct way of doing anything. There's also a wealth of information that can be added by way of closeup pictures of both models and full size examples to help add those details that aren't included in the plans. Maybe you could start one if you're building a locomotive that's not got one yet? The world of Model Engineering is a million miles away from the modern engineering world, but hopefully the newer members will gradually turn this round and make life a lot easier with comprehensive reworking of old favourites with all those things you mention. A few more models using Metric sizes wouldn't go amiss either since there are close equivalents to pretty much all of the old Imperial sizes. |
|
pault
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,500
|
Post by pault on Mar 17, 2014 22:32:33 GMT
Hi All
It’s very easy to judge the available drawings by today’s standards, but let’s not forget that some of the LBSC designs are the best part of 80 years old and were produced by an amateur. In conjunction with his words and music a lot of other amateurs have produced successful working models. What he did worked regardless of what we think.
When you look at “proper “engineering drawings from the 1920’s they did not have tolerances, phrases like 1 ½” bare, or full were common were it was critical there maybe something like 2” + 0.003 for press fit. Skilled men with many years of experience knew what was needed. A rough fag packet sketch to a “highly experienced and skilled man” will produce the goods, as will a fully dimensioned and tolerance drawing in the hands of a skilled man. To get a total amateur to build a working steam loco actually takes something a bit special.
Maybe what we need is a book for the beginner steam builder that says leave this much clearance on here, use this press fit on here, and the reasons why the fit is needed. Trouble is we would never all agree on what is correct, maybe it’s a case for the majority say it’s like this
I applauded the initiative to update the drawings and the reality is that they could be redrawn tomorrow to much better standards. However do any of us have the time to redraw the 113 published designs of LBSC, let alone those of all the other designers?
It is easy to criticise the old designs, however if you have ever tried working to the original 1920/30’s full size loco drawings you might understand why people like LBSC simplified things to a large degree.
Let’s be honest there is a subtle difference between a skilled and an experienced man (or woman), the skilled guys need to learn from the experienced people, likewise there are lots of things that the experienced people can learn from the up to date skilled people.
Let’s update the drawings, but in doing so let’s not forget that there are amateurs using the same drawings who will be confused or put off by tight tolerances, or even by tolerances full stop. It’s interesting that I was taught to draw to BS 308 which was withdrawn in 2000 after 73 years. It was replaced by BS 8888 which was then updated in 2008. It’s no wonder LBSC’s or Martin Evans drawings seem out of date.
Ok I need my bed now
Regards
Paul
|
|
Geoff
Hi-poster
Posts: 171
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 18, 2014 2:55:39 GMT
Following on from Paul's comments .... There may also be many people out there who, like me, would prefer to work off the original LBSC drawings. My lathe is 70 years old and I'm having fun being a bit retro. Of course it has its frustrations, one of the main ones being that the "why" is often missing from the words and music and you only find out why after you've made a mistake. I don't mind that ... its part of the learning process, and if I had been a bit cleverer I would have worked it out first. I think the other point to remember is that the instructions were provided in 3 or 4 pages with each magazine issue and it would have been impractical to take 4 years to run a series of overcomplicated build instructions. Compare the KN Harris valve gear on Maid of Kent to the LBSC valve gear .... much more complex to build, and fine if you're not a beginner.
Cheers
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by KennLindeman on Mar 18, 2014 6:30:02 GMT
Here is the site I have set up for the Maid of Kent. I am looking for photos which we can use on this site. Firstly i would like to show the differences between inside and outside cylinders. maid-of-kent.wikia.com/ |
|
Geoff
Hi-poster
Posts: 171
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 18, 2014 6:49:25 GMT
Here is the site I have set up for the Maid of Kent. I am looking for photos which we can use on this site. Firstly i would like to show the differences between inside and outside cylinders. maid-of-kent.wikia.com/Well done Ken. I tried doing the same thing earlier on today but being technological pygmy I didn't quite get it right. Once I get my act together I'll post a picture of a Maunsell L1, together with some of the errors I've picked up so far. I think we need the following headings: Drawings - which will show simply dimensional errors on drawings Inside Cylinders - Joy Valve Gear - Stephensons Valve Gear - Don Young Modified Stephenson Gear Outside Cylinders Axlepump Smokebox |
|
|
|
Post by KennLindeman on Mar 18, 2014 7:09:41 GMT
Geoff thanks for the input. I will add the headings this afternoon. I am busy redrawing the drawings in cad and will correct any errors at the same time. I am busy with the valve gears. We also need to add Harris's version of the gears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Mar 18, 2014 7:46:27 GMT
Excellent! I've just added a link to that on the Wiki index
|
|
Geoff
Hi-poster
Posts: 171
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 18, 2014 23:35:48 GMT
Geoff thanks for the input. I will add the headings this afternoon. I am busy redrawing the drawings in cad and will correct any errors at the same time. I am busy with the valve gears. We also need to add Harris's version of the gears. Ken, I have tried posting some scans of the Don Young modified gear arrangement but keep getting the error message that my files are too big. I can email them to you, but I'm not sure how to get your email address off the forum. I ran the Don Young Stephenson arrangement on the Dockstader simulator yesterday and it seemed to provide very even valve events. I have only run the LBSC design on Wallace simulator, where it looked a bit dodgy, but need to try it on Dockstader to see if its as bad as everyone says it is. Boy, there are some clever cookies out there! Geoff |
|
|
|
Post by davebreeze on Mar 19, 2014 0:25:03 GMT
For the Maid of Kent people, have you seen this? www.m-niggemann.com and click on 'modelbau' Looks like he has done a 3d CAD model and is selling metric drawings. |
|
jma1009
Elder Statesman
Posts: 5,917
|
Post by jma1009 on Mar 19, 2014 0:39:13 GMT
hi geoff,
Don Young like LBSC always made some fundamental errors with stephensons gear. the radius of the expansion links is always wrong (as is the eccentric rod length), plus in Don's version of the Maid of Kent design (ME 1969) plus a few others with rocker arms he failed to draw out the gear correctly. have a look at H.S. Gowan's articles in the SMEE journal and Don Ashton's excellent book on Stephensons valve gear. no way is the Don Young version of the Maid of Kent anything near correct, though it is better than the LBSC design. incidentally after publishing his modified design in 1969, Don and Gordon Chiverton (whose loco was 're-designed/modified') then underwent a further 3 years of adjustment which isnt covered by the original ME articles. Don perpetuated his errors in all subsequent stephensons valve gear designs, and never understood the correct design parameters and setting out of same. in fact on his MARIE E design he produced a stephensons valve gear that was totally unworkable.
cheers,
julian
|
|
Geoff
Hi-poster
Posts: 171
|
Post by Geoff on Mar 19, 2014 2:39:36 GMT
hi geoff, Don Young like LBSC always made some fundamental errors with stephensons gear. the radius of the expansion links is always wrong (as is the eccentric rod length), plus in Don's version of the Maid of Kent design (ME 1969) plus a few others with rocker arms he failed to draw out the gear correctly. have a look at H.S. Gowan's articles in the SMEE journal and Don Ashton's excellent book on Stephensons valve gear. no way is the Don Young version of the Maid of Kent anything near correct, though it is better than the LBSC design. incidentally after publishing his modified design in 1969, Don and Gordon Chiverton (whose loco was 're-designed/modified') then underwent a further 3 years of adjustment which isnt covered by the original ME articles. Don perpetuated his errors in all subsequent stephensons valve gear designs, and never understood the correct design parameters and setting out of same. in fact on his MARIE E design he produced a stephensons valve gear that was totally unworkable. cheers, julian Thanks for that excellent bit of advice, Julian .... I was making the mistake of giving Don guru status when I should have been a bit more circumspect. I have already built the gear as drawn by LBSC and I don't want to have yet another re-build! However ... Don Young's article certainly answers some of the questions that were nagging my inexperienced head. Things like: how do you adjust the valve rod length, wear on the rocker trunnion and of course the dreaded axlepump arrangement for the Stephensons inside cylinder Maid of Kent. You've made me paranoid now .... can I trust the simulators?!! I think I'll need to spend some more time reading. |
|
Maybe I can modify it to use in the tender as a hand pump.
