Jump to content
 

Agenoria WR 1366 Pannier for Pencarrow Bridge


2ManySpams
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

The 1366 class didn't have rivets on the tanks.

 

Thanks Miss P - studied loads of photos last night and although there are seem lines there don't appear to be the vast number of rivets that are half etched on the rear of the tank. As has been mentioned, perhaps the tank is used for another kit.

 

Edit - just re-checked the instructions and they do indeed say punch out the rivet detail along the tank seem lines - the photos they include of the kit build also show  rivets either side of the seems. Glad to have caught this one early!

 

(Page 2 already and all I've done is open the box!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might. Fold-up gearboxes like that one can be set up to run very nicely but often they give problems. My advice - make up the geabox (you already have all the parts) and if it performs well then you've scored. If it doesn't then cut your losses and invest in an ABC - they will fit your motor on it for you. An ABC will be an expensive solution but in my opinion worth every penny.

 

Chaz

 

Good advice from Chaz. ABCs are worth every penny, even though need a lot of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the frame etches, it appears to be designed to be compensated. So no worry about cutting out holes for horn blocks. This bodes well IMHO. I have rigid and compensated 0-6-0s and the compensated ones run better as far as I am concerned.

It appears to use etched twin beams, so you may not even a need to buy/borrow a set of axle alignment jigs.

 

Not sure I agree with that last sentence. Once the holes in the beams are opened out sufficiently to accept the wheel bearings and the beam pivot holes in both the frames and the beams have also been fettled the possibility exists for alignment errors to creep in. Of course you might be lucky but a six coupled chassis really does need jigging up, you don't need a big error to cause problems. This doesn't need to be an expensive jig, a set of jig axles with the coupling rods popped on the ends should serve. I have done this with some of my locos and can vouch - it does work.

 

Chaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

So on tonight's edition of 'looking interested but failing to do anything practical' we have some images of the drawings and sketches contained in the kit instructions. I have to say that I'm very impressed with the amount of effort put in by Agenoria.

 

post-6675-0-13824800-1404933815_thumb.jpg

 

post-6675-0-14431300-1404933806_thumb.jpg

 

post-6675-0-89548500-1404933783_thumb.jpg

 

post-6675-0-33220400-1404933794_thumb.jpg

 

post-6675-0-35649600-1404933770_thumb.jpg

 

post-6675-0-93941300-1404933776_thumb.jpg

 

It's as easy as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... Simples!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Jumping lots and lots ahead, what are people's thoughts on building this in sub-assemblies that are bolted together to aid future work / maintenance and painting the thing? 

 

I'm wondering if the cab should be a separate unit - the design of the real loco doesn't appear to lend itself to a removeable roof. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm perplexed by the first diagram of the chassis.

 

Are there two parts #3 as it appears - one close to each frame? And if so, does the rear axle rock as it would need to in order to provide true "three point" compensation?

 

Or is there only one part #3 rocking on the middle of the leading & driving axles, in which case the rear axle can be fixed in the frames?

 

Thx

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noted the 'rocking' compensation unit in the instructions you've posted and had a thought. Firstly, I DON'T want to hijack this thread for another heated and often pointless discussion on compensation pros and cons, but I wondered if there was any merit in devising a bi-lateral compensation unit on those two axles: i.e. It rocks along the length and width. A brief answer and explanation would be great, thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I noted the 'rocking' compensation unit in the instructions you've posted and had a thought. Firstly, I DON'T want to hijack this thread for another heated and often pointless discussion on compensation pros and cons, but I wondered if there was any merit in devising a bi-lateral compensation unit on those two axles: i.e. It rocks along the length and width. A brief answer and explanation would be great, thanks.

 

Feel free to ask - it's all about learning for me.

 

You'll have to rely on others answering it though as I don't even understand the question ;-p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Step 1 The Main Chassis

 

Well I'm sitting here reading the instructions, ready to cut out Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It would appear the first thing I have to do is decide on whether to build it rigid, sprung or compensated. Progress grinds to a halt! I know I don't want a rigid chassis, so that leaves sprung or compensated.

 

For sprung I think I need to buy some additional hornblock thingies. For compensated it would appear that all the bits are in the kit. At this point in time, with limited knowledge or building experience on such matters, I'm leaning towards going with the compensation option. (Edit, having read this thread I think I've made the right choice for me)

 

What I'm not clear about is the relationship between the bearings and the compensation beams. I'm assuming the bearings pass through the main frame and are soldered to the compensation beams. Do the compensation beams move in tandem or should there be enough slop in the axle/bearing to allow them to move independently? Basically what physical movement am I trying to achieve / constrain? 

 

Text from this stage is below:

 

post-6675-0-68097000-1404942099.jpg

 

post-6675-0-72345000-1404942097.jpg

 

post-6675-0-85511100-1404942095.jpg

 

Edit: looks like this is a subject and a half: http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My model of the saddle tank  1365 has an ABC box using the smaller (1624 think motor)it idn't start that way it had a masima with a precision box and 40:1 worm it ran pretty well but was a little noisy. Steve who had put it togehter for me kept mutting about the noise at one show then took it home it came back with the ABC really good slow running and quiet. It rarely well for two days and Guldex with no wheel cleaning doing nearly all the work.

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1 The Main Chassis

 

Well I'm sitting here reading the instructions, ready to cut out Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It would appear the first thing I have to do is decide on whether to build it rigid, sprung or compensated. Progress grinds to a halt! I know I don't want a rigid chassis, so that leaves sprung or compensated.

 

 

Step 1 The Main Chassis

 

Well I'm sitting here reading the instructions, ready to cut out Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It would appear the first thing I have to do is decide on whether to build it rigid, sprung or compensated. Progress grinds to a halt! I know I don't want a rigid chassis, so that leaves sprung or compensated.

 

For sprung I think I need to buy some additional hornblock thingies. For compensated it would appear that all the bits are in the kit. At this point in time, with limited knowledge or building experience on such matters, I'm leaning towards going with the compensation option. (Edit, having read this thread I think I've made the right choice for me)

 

What I'm not clear about is the relationship between the bearings and the compensation beams. I'm assuming the bearings pass through the main frame and are soldered to the compensation beams. Do the compensation beams move in tandem or should there be enough slop in the axle/bearing to allow them to move independently? Basically what physical movement am I trying to achieve / constrain? 

 

Text from this stage is below:

 

attachicon.gifScreenHunter_02 Jul. 09 22.37.jpg

 

attachicon.gifScreenHunter_03 Jul. 09 22.38.jpg

 

attachicon.gifScreenHunter_04 Jul. 09 22.38.jpg

 

Edit: looks like this is a subject and a half: http://www.clag.org.uk/41-0rev.html)

 

For sprung I think I need to buy some additional hornblock thingies. For compensated it would appear that all the bits are in the kit.

 

No contest, in my opinion. Use the compensating beams, forget springs. Both methods work but, as you say, you have all the parts.

 

To answer your questions, yes the beams must be able to move independently and the bearings should be fixed in the beams and the holes in the frames should be big enough to allow them to move up and down - and unless your trackwork is really awful a millimeter of movement is ample. Don't Agenoria's instructions make this clear?

 

Chaz

Edited by chaz
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm not clear about is the relationship between the bearings and the compensation beams. I'm assuming the bearings pass through the main frame and are soldered to the compensation beams. Do the compensation beams move in tandem or should there be enough slop in the axle/bearing to allow them to move independently? Basically what physical movement am I trying to achieve / constrain?

4-point compensation, which is what is supplied in the kit, is a bit of a fudge, although a reasonably pragmatic one. The bearings do pass through the frames (but check for easy clearance between the bearing body and the slots in the chassis side frames) and are soldered to the beams #3. These beams cope well with track irregularities that are symmetrical (on both rails). But real track is not like that of course, so 4-point compensation is strained when the beams do not move in tandem, because the bearings become misaligned:

 

post-133-0-01391000-1404945691.gif

 

In practice, there will probably be enough axle to bearing slop to cater for this misalignment. Reducing the length of the bearing will help somewhat in this respect if you are worried about trying to cope with really bad track.

 

The downside of having the axle to bearing slop is that it might not be easy to ensure the bearing pitch (held in the beams #3) aligns well enough with the coupling rod pitch. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Suggest check the pitch correlation with some alignment jigs before proceeding much further, i.e. solder the bearings in #3 according to the rod pitch.

 

 

Love those instructions. It's no wonder people turn to CSBs these days...

 

Edited by Miss Prism
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify my question earlier, and to some extent yours.

 

The front two axles are connected to each other by the beam. If you look at them from the side, when one axle moves up (through a bump or drop) the other will go down due to a pivot between the axles. My question was, would the same system work where if you look at the loco from the front, when one side goes up the other side goes down, but in this case the axles are not connected to each other.

 

Maybe I need to do a drawing?...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really see the point of "4-point" compensation - as Miss P says, it's a fudge, and like a four legged stool, only works on a flat surface, or, in this case, one that has vertical curves, but no twist in it.

 

I have built 3 sprung, 1 hybrid, and 9 compensated locos, and one rigid one, and they all run satisfactorily. Springing is generally more challenging, and I find that I can't see a significant benefit over compensation, although I think both are better than rigid. I think Chaz mentioned in his Dock Green thread how satisfying it is to see the suspension "work" as the wheels run over something like a match.

 

For those who are not familiar with three-point compensation, the aim is to reduce the support of the loco to three points, irrespective of how many wheels the loco has, which means that there will never be any rocking, like a three-legged stool, and the weight will be more-or-less evenly shared between the wheels.

 

The simplest case is a four wheeler. If one axle is rigid and the other can rock about a fulcrum at its mid point, provided the centre of gravity of the vehicle remains within the imaginary triangle defined by the rigid bearings and the fulcrum, the vehicle will be stable, and will maintain wheel contact, and therefore, pick-up from all four wheels.

 

There are two ways of achieving this on a six-wheeler. The simpler route is to place a cross-beam between two of the axles, and pivoting on this, have a longitudinal rocking beam bearing on the tops of the axles (usually leading & driving) The other (usually trailing) axle is rigidly supported in the frames. This allows two axles to rock, and they will also rise and fall to follow vertical curvature of the track. It is usually simplest to have the driven axle rigid, as there is nothing in the way, but of course, this only works if it is the leading or trailing one. The support triangle is now between the two rigid axle bearings, and the centre of the rocking beam

 

If you need to drive the middle axle, for example, an 0-4-2, or because you want working valve gear, the other approach is applicable. In this case, you provide a pair of independent rocking beams acting on the axle boxes of two axles much as the kit does - but the axle boxes must not be attached to the beams, otherwise it will bind as shown in Miss Prism's post above - they need to be able to rock to allow the wheels to follow any twist in the track. The motor & gearbox can fit between the rocking beams. The third axle has to be able to rock from side to side to accommodate twists in the track. In this case the support triangle is between the pivot points of the rocking beams, and the central fulcrum on the third axle.

 

In eight-wheelers, you need three rocking beams. One is used to compensate two axles as in the first solution for 6-wheelers, and the other pair are arranged as in the second solution - thus the support triangle is between the centre of the single rocking beam, and the two pivot points of the pair of beams. At this point, I wish I had a CAD app on my ipad!

 

10-wheelers add a further challenge - rigid is not good, particularly if when the boiler and chassis are assembled, the chassis twists, as I discovered, and fixed, on a pal's 9F. For full compensation, a rocking beam, supported by a rocking beam is going to be necessary to get from three axles to a single point of compensation, and that will be tricky - like Gresley (actually Webb) conjugated gear, so another approach is probably easier. I've never built a 10-wheeler, or a CSB chassis, but it might be a good option here, alternatively, build a hybrid, light springing on the centre axle and compensate it as an 8-wheeler.

 

If you spring or compensate, you do need jointed rods, otherwise they'll bind, or bend.

 

It is possible to include bogies and pony trucks in the compensation, and certainly helps with awkward cases, a 2P I built springs (sorry) to mind. In this case I put a rocking beam between the bogie pivot and the centre of the leading axle. The rear axle was rigid, and motorised. I did something similar on my Castle, as the centre of gravity was too far forwards to allow me not carry some weight on the bogie. The middle axle is sprung, and the rear is rigid.

 

Best

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

4-point compensation, which is what is supplied in the kit, is a bit of a fudge, although a reasonably pragmatic one. The bearings do pass through the frames (but check for easy clearance between the bearing body and the slots in the chassis side frames) and are soldered to the beams #3. These beams cope well with track irregularities that are symmetrical (on both rails). But real track is not like that of course, so 4-point compensation is strained when the beams do not move in tandem, because the bearings become misaligned:

attachicon.gifside-beam-misalignment.gif

In practice, there will probably be enough axle to bearing slop to cater for this misalignment. Reducing the length of the bearing will help somewhat in this respect if you are worried about trying to cope with really bad track.

The downside of having the axle to bearing slop is that it might not be easy to ensure the bearing pitch (held in the beams #3) aligns well enough with the coupling rod pitch. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Suggest check the pitch correlation with some alignment jigs before proceeding much further, i.e. solder the bearings in #3 according to the rod pitch.

Love those instructions. It's no wonder people turn to CSBs these days...

 

Miss P it was the exact situation in your sketch that had me wondering exactly what it was that I was aiming to end up mechanically. In my mind I saw the situation whereby both beams wanted to rotate in opposite directions but the axles and bearings preventing this. That's what had me puzzled having no made anything like this before. Hence the question I asked. From the answers it seems that this four point compensation is a bit of a bodge but one that is easy and works reasonably well which is good enough for me.

 

Being a relative new comer to 7mm and an absolute novice to building loco kits, I have to admit to having a very poorly equipped toolbox for the work in hand. For starters it looks like I need a reemer and a fret saw. A few of you have also mentioned alignment jigs. Does anyone have any recommendations for these items of kit (preferably not high-end prices).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this link

http://www.metalsmith.co.uk/loco_buildingtesting_7mm_scale.htm or here

http://www.meteormodels.com/www.meteormodels.gbr.cc/info.php?p=10

 

This is the simplest form of axle alignment (I think Alan Gibson might do them as well??) or if you are going to build a few locos you could try this

 

http://www.avonsideworks.com/products.html

 

but it ain't cheap (& they get dearer!!)

 

I have one of these and swear by it

 

http://www.hobbyholidays.co.uk/products.php?cat=32

 

But they don't seem to be making them at the minute

 

OR you could buy some 3/16 rod and make your own..........simples!!!

 

(Edit to include extra link cos I forgot about meteor models ones!!!)

Edited by puddlejumper
Link to post
Share on other sites

4-point compensation, which is what is supplied in the kit, is a bit of a fudge, although a reasonably pragmatic one. The bearings do pass through the frames (but check for easy clearance between the bearing body and the slots in the chassis side frames) and are soldered to the beams #3. These beams cope well with track irregularities that are symmetrical (on both rails). But real track is not like that of course, so 4-point compensation is strained when the beams do not move in tandem, because the bearings become misaligned:

 

attachicon.gifside-beam-misalignment.gif

 

In practice, there will probably be enough axle to bearing slop to cater for this misalignment. Reducing the length of the bearing will help somewhat in this respect if you are worried about trying to cope with really bad track.

 

The downside of having the axle to bearing slop is that it might not be easy to ensure the bearing pitch (held in the beams #3) aligns well enough with the coupling rod pitch. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Suggest check the pitch correlation with some alignment jigs before proceeding much further, i.e. solder the bearings in #3 according to the rod pitch.

 

 

Love those instructions. It's no wonder people turn to CSBs these days...

 

 

My GNR saddle tank has 2 rocking beams as your pannier tank kit is designed to have and it works fine. The bearing misalignment problem is theoretical - in practice it has no effect for three reasons

  1. the working clearance between the axle and the bearing (as mentioned above)
  2. the actual movements are small (unless the track is dreadful - your track isn't dreadful, is it?)
  3. the beams are made of thin strips of brass - which will flex (and move on their pivots)

Don't bother to do a drawing. Think of it this way - take one side of the loco - the three wheels can always take up a vertical position so that they are all in contact with the rail. This happens on the other side too - the attitude of the loco - pitch in aircraft or ship - will allow this. No need to panic though - the movements will be small.

There is a theoretical shortfall, the rigid axle does not allow the loco to roll so there may be times when one wheel of the rigid axle is not in contact - this doesn't seem to matter in practice.

 

Compensation is one area where strong beliefs are held and expressed and you may find the conflicting advice baffling. Don't let it stop you - start the assembly of your kit, build it as designed and you will find that it runs well on the track, with none of the pickup and adhesion problems that it would have if you built it rigid.

 

MP is right when he says that you need to use some sort of jig to set the wheel bearings in the beams at the same spacing as the coupling rods.

 

hope that's helpful.

 

Chaz

Edited by chaz
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have used this form of compensation for many years and we use it in most of our kits (with the addition of allowing the other axle to rock as well in more recent ones). It's very easy to set up and more or less foolproof, I know it's not perfect but it's a great deal better than rigid. One small point though, I used to use screws and nuts for the compensating beams but found that the screw thread tended to wear (or wear the frames) very quickly so I now use plain rivets.

Michael Edge

Judith Edge kits

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I use an exacto razor saw for some jobs but all find a small pair of gilbow snips very usefull. I woul also recommend a hold and fold for etched kit work before I had the hold and fold I used a couple of pieces of ground steel stock. I find the bearings supplied with most kits do not need reaming. I have a suspiscion that the reaming is where the bearing do not align correctly. I would also recommend a set of jewellers broaches or rather two sets to cover from very small to about 6mm. I also have a couple of pairs of those cheap (pound shop) mini pliers which are square ended smooth jaws these are rare to find but very useful.

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used this form of compensation for many years and we use it in most of our kits (with the addition of allowing the other axle to rock as well in more recent ones). It's very easy to set up and more or less foolproof, I know it's not perfect but it's a great deal better than rigid. One small point though, I used to use screws and nuts for the compensating beams but found that the screw thread tended to wear (or wear the frames) very quickly so I now use plain rivets.

Michael Edge

Judith Edge kits

 

Quite so, pivotting on a thread is bad engineering because of the wear problem and also the fact that the beams are probably too thin to sit across the threads, making for too much slack. As Michael says a plain rivet is much better - or you could use a rod that links the frames and pivots both beams - I do it this way and it does have advantages.

 

P1020207700x525.jpg

 

Chaz

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...