Jump to content
 
  • entries
    32
  • comments
    245
  • views
    87,971

High Level 57XX with added CSB


buffalo

5,726 views

Although the main focus of my Camerton layout will be in the Edwardian era, I do hope to run a variety of stock from later Victorian years through to nationalisation. For this, like all good GWR branchline layouts, I'll need some pannier tanks. At some point I would like to include an early pannier conversion from an early saddle tank, for example, a representative of the 1813, 1854 or 2721 classes. I'm going to start, however, where everyone else does, with a 57XX or 8750. As I already have a couple of Bachmann bodies, the obvious way forward is to add High Level chassis to these, a task that has been keeping me busy over the last couple of weeks. Let's begin with the obligatory shot of the etch:

 

blogentry-6746-0-63890400-1354481601_thumb.jpg

 

Apart from the etch, there are various bags containing gears, hornblocks and other bits and pieces. Like other High Level kits, this one comes with a gearbox and includes frame spacers for 00, EM and P4. It is designed to be built either rigid or using the supplied compensation beams on the centre and rear axles, with a rocking front axle. However, as the title suggests, I decided to go for a CSB arrangement rather than compensation. Recently, there's been much muttering over on the main forum area about springs and compensation with all the usual cries about them being difficult, time-consuming, etc. Hopefully what follows might pursuade one or two folk that they are not really the work of the devil.

 

Before getting stuck in, another warning is in order. This is a luxury build with all mod cons when it comes to jigs and other tools (though I don't have a quartering jig or a hold and fold, and don't feel the need for them). Those of a more spartan pursuasion may chastise me for this so it's worth saying that none of these are necessary. I've done it all before and could have done it all again with simple hand tools and three lengths of 1/8" silver steel rod but I simply chose not to.

 

So, let's start with the frames and rods. The frames were removed from the etch, cleaned up and the holes for rigid axle bearings reamed out to take the supplied bushes. The rods are a three layer lamination jointed together with a supplied rivet. The result is a substantial 0.85mm thick:

 

blogentry-6746-0-89087300-1354481602_thumb.jpg

 

So why did I bother with the rigid axle holes and bushes? Firstly, so that I could use a High Level CSB jig to help mark out the fulcrum positions for the beam:

 

blogentry-6746-0-86205700-1354481603_thumb.jpg

 

I was going to spend some time with the well-known spreadsheet working out the positions but I discovered that the job had already been done for me. The 57XX is just one of many examples illustrated on one of the clag.org.uk CSB pages.

 

The High Level jig is intended to be used with their CSB tags that are attached to the bearings in their horn guides. The jig has three rows of holes corresponding to the holes for the spring wire in the tags and, together, these allow some flexibility of choice in placing the wire. In this case, the highest of the three holes promised the least interference with frame spacers and other parts. Once this was decided, holes were marked out and drilled. Some small cutouts were needed in the front spacer, motion plate and firebox front. In the latter case, this only needed a slight extension of the slots provided for the normal compensation beams. The cutouts are circled in yellow below, and the intact EM spacers are also shown for comparison:

 

blogentry-6746-0-88812000-1354481604_thumb.jpg

 

Remember that I said there were two reasons for using the rigid chassis axle bearings? The second was to aid setting up my Avonside jig using both frames and rods to give a double check on the axle spacing:

 

blogentry-6746-0-18652200-1354481606_thumb.jpg

 

 

Once the jig was ready, the area around the rigid bushes was removed and the sides of the resulting slots cleaned up ready to accept High Level hornguides. At this point, I also removed the representation of the underhung axle springs so that later the wheels and axles could be dropped out without removing the wheels from the axles. I will be using Gibson wheels and I think it is essential to minimise the number of times they are removed from and replaced on the axle.

 

blogentry-6746-0-77537100-1354481607_thumb.jpg

 

With the hornguides in place, the frames were erected on the jig and the spacers soldered into place:

 

blogentry-6746-0-13548900-1354481609_thumb.jpg

 

CSB fulcrums were created by soldering short handrail knobs into the holes drilled earlier and we were ready for the first test of whether the springy beams lined up and were clear of any obstructions:

 

blogentry-6746-0-33834700-1354481610_thumb.jpg

 

blogentry-6746-0-64938700-1354481611_thumb.jpg

 

All was well, so on to the next stage. The lower part of the boiler was rolled to shape, the gearbox was assembled and tried in position:

 

blogentry-6746-0-86256200-1354481612_thumb.jpg

 

At this stage, I couldn't resist a sneak preview of the final result, so three wheels were pressed on to axles and, after removing a few small bits of plastic, one of the bodies was placed over the chassis:

 

blogentry-6746-0-24462400-1354481638_thumb.jpg

 

The Gibson 4'71/2" GWR P4 wheel is one of those that comes without the pre-drilled hole for the crankpin, so these needed to be drilled. Consistency in the crank throws is an important factor in obtaining smooth running. To get the holes in the right place, a simple jig made from a piece of brass with a 1/8" and a 0.75mm hole at the right centres would suffice but, again, I took the luxury route. With the milling vice loose on the table I clamped a piece of 1/8" rod in the vertical V groove and inserted the other end in a suitable collet. The vice was then clamped to the table and, after removing the rod, offset the table by 3.17 3.34mm to represent the 91/2 10" crank throw*. Then, the pin holes were drilled in each wheel. The wheels were either already mounted on an axle, or on a dummy slightly undersize axle:

 

blogentry-6746-0-66405600-1354481639_thumb.jpg

 

Interestingly, the small depressions molded into the wheels were found to be at a slightly larger pitch, so some care was needed in starting the small drill. Another feature of Gibson wheels that's often commented on is the fact that the crankpin holes align at or near the edge of the inner molded boss. Something has to be done here to ensure that the heads of the crankpin screws do not foul the axle bearings and the screws are not forced off centre. Two common solutions are carving away some of the boss with a scalpel or countersinking the holes. I chose the latter approach and this was aided by my setup in the milling machine. I simply countersunk the inner end of the holes using a 2.5mm drill:

 

blogentry-6746-0-09944600-1354481642_thumb.jpg

 

Next, the wheels were fitted and quartered. Again this is often presented as one of the arcana of chassis building but is really very simple. First, I pressed the three loose wheels part way on to their axles and aligned the quartering roughly by eye. The cranks on each side do not need to be exactly 90 degrees apart, but the cranks on each axle must all be at the same angle. I took the rear axle as my datum and fitted crankpin bushes to the pins on this and the centre axle, leaving the plain unbushed pins on the front axle. I then fitted the rods and adjusted the wheels on the centre axle until the chassis would roll freely. If you look carefully at the next photo, you should be able to see that there are no bushes on the front pins:

 

blogentry-6746-0-10621000-1354481643_thumb.jpg

 

At this point, the rear and centre axles have exactly the same quartering. Then, I put the bushes on the front axle and replaced the rods, adjusting only the front wheels until the chassis would roll freely. Once everything is aligned correctly, the wheels were then pressed fully on to the axles using a b2b gauge to fix their final positions.

 

As I had only reamed the holes in the rods to be a sliding fit with no slop on the crankpin bushes and was testing without any lubrication, I wasn't surprised to find there was a very slight binding between the rods and bushes. It is very slight, though and I'm confident that with just a touch of the reamer and some oil it will all smooth out. However, as I was running out of time this evening and wanted to get this post finished, I quickly refitted the motor and went for a quick run on the rolling road. It works :O

 

blogentry-6746-0-38517500-1354481644_thumb.jpg

 

Now all I need to do are the little fiddly bits like the brakes and pickups, and solve the little problems of how to make the underhung springs removeable and how to mount the vacuum pump without fouling the CSB spring :scratchhead: Then sometime, I must finish the second one and get back to carving off the topfeed and other modifications to the Bachmann body.

 

Nick

 

Update 2012-12-03:

CK asked below about other ways of drilling the Gibson wheels. Here's what I would have done if I didn't have the mill. First take a piece of brass about 3mm thick and mark off two points at the crank throw distance, in this case, 1/8" (91/2" full size) 3.34mm (10" full size)*:

blogentry-6746-0-19578100-1354573152.jpg

 

The one in the photo is actually a scrap piece of aluminium, but something like the earth pin of a 13A plug would be ideal.

Drill both points at 0.75mm, then open out one to 1/8". If possible, do this in a drill press to ensure the holes are vertical and parallel, otherwise do what you can by hand. Next, take a piece of 1/8" brass rod, put it in a drill chuck and polish it with some emery cloth. The idea here is to reduce the diameter very slightly so that it will be a good sliding fit in the wheel's axle hole. Use as a jig to drill holes. It's maybe a bit tricky to line up when starting but should ensure that the holes are parallel and all the same pitch:

 

blogentry-6746-0-38996800-1354573151.jpg

 

On the back of the wheel, either trim with a scalpel as below then countersink or, when you finished using the drilling jig for the pin holes, open up the smaller hole to around 2.5mm and use as before to countersing the hole.

 

blogentry-6746-0-56309500-1354573153.jpg

 

Update 2013-03-16

* Diligent work by Miss Prism has found that the crank throw should be 10" so I've updated the above to show the correct measurements. Perhaps the dimple in the Gibson wheel is in the correct place? Mine remains half an inch undersize but, hopefully, no one else will be misled...

  • Like 28

34 Comments


Recommended Comments



  • RMweb Gold

What a great build description Nick. For someone like me this is fairly advanced stuff, but you've managed to make it easily understandable.

 

And what a difference the High Level chassis makes to the 8750!

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Hi Nick

 

Quote: "Those of a more spartan pursuasion may chastise me for this so it's worth saying that none of these are necessary."

 

I, for one Nick, would never dream of chastising you, and it's obvious from previous posts that others have found it both interesting and informative. However - and I have to be honest here - I think it's a valuable opportunity lost to show those of us who aren't blessed with such aids, and wishing to take our first steps into the field of kit building/compensation, how to do it, especially when one considers that a conversion of the ubiquitous Bachmann model would strike a chord with most.

 

Nevertheless, for those of an engineering bent, it's an excellent 'how to': very well explained and excellently illustrated.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • RMweb Gold

This is extremely useful, Nick, thanks for the comprehensive notes.

 

The CLAG site actually gives four examples of where to put the pivots, what exactly are the benefits of each example - are you able to elaborate (try as I might, the maths is beyond me!).

 

Also, for those without a milling machine, is there any further advice you could give regarding the correct drilling of the Gibson crankpin holes, please (I've only used Ultrascales so far, but I do have a set of Gibsons waiting for one of my panniers).

 

Many thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Yes, the HL kit is the one to have now if you want a fully-detailed 57xx/8750 chassis. An excellent build you've done there!

 

Looking at the spacers which help represent inside motion arrangements, you could - had you really wanted to push the envelope - use Martin Finney's inside motion kit for his 1854/2721 tank. That gives you all the working cranks, eccentrics, eccentric sheaves, etc.

 

I've been looking at the dummy inside motion arrangements that are included in Dave Bradwell's J27 kit, and am going to see whether one of the Finney inside motion kits could be adapted to make it all work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I think you would need a mirror to see the working valve gear in a 57XX! Those look like quite old Gibson wheels, have you checked they are conductive? I had some blackened ones like that - that wouldn't conduct the juice.

 

Looking good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Firstly, thanks to all for your positive comments and likes. Twenty-three likes in less than twenty-four hours is quite overwhelming!

 

devondynosoar: the motion is only a dummy, though quite effective. See below Horsetan's and Tim's comments.

 

Mikkel: yes, the High Level chassis does really does transform these models. Hopefully it will look even better when the brake gear and sandboxes are in place.

 

jonte: I'll have to do another entry when I've made some more progress. As I still have to build the second chassis and if I can find the relevant bits and pieces, I'll try to include a couple of photos of the simple approach that I used before getting the Avonside jig.

 

CK: I'd hoped that Russ would be along himself to explain the four different examples, but I'll give it a try. To my mind there's not a lot of difference between them. The important points are a reduced spring rate on the middle axle and a similar rate on the front and rear ones. It's also desirable to keep the distance from outer axles to outer fulcra as long as possible (see the note above the pannier section on how short spans increase the potential for errors). Finally, you need to avoid anything attached to the frames that might get in the way.

 

The first example has a very short rear span and the fourth would have it's front fulcrum in a large hole where the front sandbox fits. The second and third are almost the same. I chose the third because the High Level jig only allow 0,5mm intervals in setting out.

 

I'll add a suggestion on drilling the Gibson wheels at the end of the entry above.

 

Horsetan: now you've got me thinking about working inside motion I might even be tempted by the Finney 1854 kit. I've only made one set of his working motion (Dean Goods) and wasn't entirely satisfied with my results so must have another go some time. I'll be interested to see how you get on with the J27.

 

Tim: ah, the voice of reason before I get too carried away with that idea. You're right, I've just checked with the body on and it is very difficult to see any of the parts that would move. Maybe with the light in the right direction it would be visible, but most would be hidden.

 

The wheels were shiny new ones that I've blackened myself. A quick check with the multimeter confirms they are fine.

 

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Thanks Nick, good tip on using a 13A plug earth pin, I'll put that on the back burner.

 

I would suggest drilling the wheels from the back - this will avoid the problem of the countersink upsetting the drill and causing it to wander.

Link to comment

Thanks, Nick.

 

Generous to a fault, sir!

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte.

Link to comment

Thanks Nick, good tip on using a 13A plug earth pin, I'll put that on the back burner.

 

I would suggest drilling the wheels from the back - this will avoid the problem of the countersink upsetting the drill and causing it to wander.

13A plugs are a useful source of brass, I've used them to make sandboxes and I'm sure there are many other uses. I also have some old 5A and 15A round pin ones in my 'odd bits of brass' box.

 

Certainly worth trying to drill from the back, as you say, it could be easier.

 

Nick

Link to comment

...Adding working inside motion is definitely in the "extreme" category for me.

It is a bit that way for me as well. As I mentioned above, I've only done one of the Finney type which involves silversoldering the cranks to the axle then cutting out sections of axle to let them revolve. The other one I've tried is on the Brassmasters 4F. This is a simpler design and I've put all the bits together but not yet tested the complete chassis...

 

Nick

Link to comment

Just discovered this entry by accident, while I was looking for something else...

 

Anyway, regarding CK's query on why there are several plots for the 7'3" + 8'3" wheelbase, they are there primarily to show there are many possible solutions, particularly when playing around with the amount of reduction of the springrate on the middle axle. To be honest, apart from the intuitive feel everyone shares about the middle axle needing to be a little weaker than the outer two, no one really knows what this degree should be. In context though, the variations in middle axle strength shown in the plots are exceptionally small compared to previous eras of springing, where 6-coupleds were often not more than 0-4-0s with a middle axle lightly sprung or even floating around in the air somewhere.

 

The 7'3" + 8'3" plots are also there because it became my sort of default yardstick experiment in the early days - the first plot was done before the modern spreadsheets came into existence, and was a bit of an exercise in convincing myself the mathematics would scale properly. (In those days, much beam software tended to blow a fuse if you plugged in a beam diameter less than 0.1m.) The first plot was also done a long time before the HL pannier chassis was a glimmer in Chris Gibbon's eye. 10 years ago, I think the only commonly available chassis around for the wheelbase was the old Comet one, and I had no idea where any future manufacturers would put their frame spacers, so it was a case of trusting to luck to a large extent. Later on Chris introduced his Collett Goods chassis, and of course his CSB jig, and these days I try to spot published plots to a 0.5mm increment, but it's not always possible, not that anyone should get too hung up about the first place of decimals - experience seems to indicate that to the nearest 0.5mm is good enough given the other errors in the system (arising chiefly from friction), but generally it is a good objective to reasonably maximise a beam length - "design safe", in modern vacuous soundbite terms.

Link to comment

Just discovered this entry by accident, while I was looking for something else...

Well, I'm very glad you did so that we can have an authorative answer to CK's question. The multiple plots do provide a good example of how the dimensions can be varied to avoid inconveniently sited frame spacers, etc. I'm also glad to hear that no one really knows how much softer the centre axle spring can/should be. That's always been a bit of a mystery to me so I've usually played safe and kept within the range of the various examples on the clag page.

 

Nick

Link to comment

Btw, Mike Smith's CSB pannier article will feature in Snooze 181 (it should have appeared in 180 a while ago, but got held up), and it's interesting to note the similarity in his frame spacer cutouts to those Nick used, although Mike managed to leave a smidgeon of frame spacer next to the frame, rather than cut them through as Nick has done. (It really doesn't matter one way or the other, in my view.)

Link to comment

Yes, using short handrail knobs for the fulcra, you certainly could leave about 1mm of metal in place. It just struck me as rather more fiddly than it was really worth. I guess the only downside of my cutouts is that I'll need a bit more filler in the frame slots when they get painted.

 

Nick

 

ps. what's Snooze? Google didn't help and snooze+p4 threw up a long list of porn sites ;-)

Link to comment

'Snooze' = Scalefour News, innit? (I have to hold up my hand as having invented the term, although it is primarily one of endearment.)

Link to comment

Nick, when using the HL CSB jig, using the round bushes in the rigid axle holes (your 57xx_03.jpg above), did you find the round bushes needed small flats on them to fit in the jig slots or did you wipe the jig slots with a file?

Link to comment

IIRC I needed a slight touch with a taper reamer on the round hole and a very light wipe with a file along the slots. The fit is still tight enough that they don't fall out of their own accord.

 

The fulcra are Gibson short handrail knobs, so about 1.25mm, I think. The holes in the HighLevel tags on the hornblocks look to closer to 1mm.

 

Nick

Link to comment

IIRC I needed a slight touch with a taper reamer on the round hole and a very light wipe with a file along the slots. The fit is still tight enough that they don't fall out of their own accord.

 

Thanks. I think we are into the realm of a combination of tolerances on the round bearings and the jig etching, so I'm not surprised a little fettling was required. In design terms, Chris Gibbon is quite right to err on the tight side.

 

Thanks also for the beam pitch estimates. I must revisit some etchings on their blocks. Unless Chris has tweaked the carrier artworks (again!)

 

Btw, did you use the HL thinner 'spacesaver' blocks on the front axle to clear the inside motion bars?

Link to comment

...Btw, did you use the HL thinner 'spacesaver' blocks on the front axle to clear the inside motion bars?

Yes, together with his narrower tags made to fit them. Much more convenient than slimming down the fullsize blocks.

 

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The beam pitch in the Markits WD short austerity knobs is very close to 1.25mm, and these seem to align well with the carrier holes on their HL blocks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I understand Mike Smith's CSB Pannier article will be in Snooze 182, which should appear in a month or so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...