Castle Aching

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Schooner said:

Old news I'm sure, but these were sourced/developed as direct replacements the Mashima range, around which the HL loco kits were based. If nothing else the drawings ease planning/remedial CAD and 3D printing work...

 

https://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/motors

 

I think the problem might be that the Mashima 1020, which has a double-ended 1.5mm shaft is what the London Road gear set is designed for.

 

I had thought to use the High Level 1020, which has a 1mm dia. shaft, but think that I would then need the High Level gears and mount. 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Edwardian
spelling

[drduncan]

Re filing 3D prints: due to an insurmountable design opportunity I had to remove huge amounts of under frame bracing (to stop the damn thing going banana shaped) from the underside of my 48ft brake tri-comps. I used a dental burr in a mini drill. No cracking. For more control I tried using a small pillar drill with a parallel sided dental burr type thingy. Worked perfectly and again no cracking. Hand filing a 3D printed loco chassis- cracked the thing….

Duncan

[Edwardian]

Pre-Grouping Kettlewell and Bridgwater are featured in the layout topics. Some other highlights:

 

York (2FS) at York: 

 

 

 

 

Melrose End (00):

 

 

Camel Quay (00): 

 

 

Ripponden (N):

 

 

Red Hook Bay (H0):

 

 

 

 

Coleford (009):

 

 

 

 

Leysdown (P4):

 

 

 

Burford (British H0):

 

 

 

Kirtley Bridge (0):

 

 

 

 

[drduncan]

Filing prints…Oh, but the dust went everywhere 

[Buhar]

58 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

I think the problem might be that the Mashima 1020, which has a double-ended 1.5mm shaft is what the London Road gear set is designed for.

 

I had thought to use the High Level 1020, which has a 1mm dia. shaft, but think that I would then need the High Level gears and mount. 

 

 

 

Are you going to use both ends of the shaft, eg a flywheel?  I doubt the LR mount is a critical size where the shaft exits, in which case Chris at High Level can supply a sleeve to bring the shaft up to 1.5mm.  For other locos, fear not on the HL gearboxes, they're not entirely idiot-proof, but reasonable care will produce a sweet running unit.  Did John Redrup not have a solution for you, I remember a chat was on your list.

 

Alan

[Edwardian]

15 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Are you going to use both ends of the shaft, eg a flywheel?  I doubt the LR mount is a critical size where the shaft exits, in which case Chris at High Level can supply a sleeve to bring the shaft up to 1.5mm.  For other locos, fear not on the HL gearboxes, they're not entirely idiot-proof, but reasonable care will produce a sweet running unit.  Did John Redrup not have a solution for you, I remember a chat was on your list.

 

Alan

 

Good question, Alan.

 

The blurb for the 3D print says that a flywheel may be added, "a 6x12mm diametre flywheel with 1.5mm shaft hole is recommended" I did not buy any of these at the time. 

 

John's position was that, because his stuff was designed for the Mashima, I'd be better not buying more unless and until I found some Mashima 1020s, which is a bit unlikely by this stage. 

 

I also note the following, which I do not quite understand, but is a disadvantage of the recommended motor and gears set, "The only potential problem with this combination is a small hole in the cab below the firebox hole may need to be cut out slightly for the gear wheel, but after backhead, levers and crew were added to the finished locomotive you won't easily see it"

[Dave John]

Would the mitsumi motor fit? I have used several, runs well, 1.5 shaft. 

[16Brunel]

17 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

 

Miss 27 there is a very pretty lady - I can see the attraction!  Like most right-thinking people (eg the GWR), I believe that whilst cylinders and driving rods are perfectly acceptable in modern society, vulgarities like valve gear should be hidden from sight, solely a private matter betwixt driver and fitter (and hence a hell of a lot easier to model!).

 

And I'm loving the Marvell reference too 👍

 

- Scott

[Compound2632]

There's a great deal of superb modelling there but...

  

13 hours ago, Edwardian said:

... that's a lot of Southern wagons and...

13 hours ago, Edwardian said:

... a lot of Great Western wagons.

[unravelled]

On 07/04/2023 at 13:13, Edwardian said:

Snip...

 

So, 54mm or 13'6".

 

Hmm.

 

Better get measuring locos!

 

EDIT: So, thinking about this, I can posit that the height to eaves and cross timbers from rail tops was 12'10" or 13' when built, if I am that concerned about what would have been deemed sufficient in the 1850s, but can have it raised to 14' subsequently.

 

14' is possible, I think, if I allow the eaves timbers to overlap the stairwell lintel.  I can even allow a very subtle camber to the cross beam, which might gain me another mm over the centre of the platform road, making my nominal 14' 14'3".

 

   

 

 

Just a thought about gaining every mm. Have you allowed for a slope across the patforms,? This could allow the station building to be another 1mm higher than the platform edge, helping, (a little), the articulation between train shed and building windows.

 

Dave

[Buhar]

28 minutes ago, unravelled said:

Just a thought about gaining every mm. Have you allowed for a slope across the patforms,? This could allow the station building to be another 1mm higher than the platform edge, helping, (a little), the articulation between train shed and building windows.

 

Dave

If CA has been recently (last 5 years) been rebuilt any slope should be the other way with the rail edge of the platform higher than the building side so barrows will not roll onto the track.  But imperceptible for our purposes, I think.  If not rebuilt and likely to have low platforms, the slope will go t'other way.

 

Alan

Edited April 10, 2023 by Buhar
Corrected (new text in italics) in the light of Stephen's post below.

[Buhar]

If you have a valance on the front of the train shed, saw-tooth pattern or something fancier dangling below the main cross beam, you could have a cut-out at the chimney position.  This is on the premise that early locomotives on the WNR were lower, but later purchases fouled the roof and, being parsimonious, the solution was a man on a ladder with a saw.

 

Alan

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Any slope should be the other way with the rail edge of the platform higher than the building side so barrows will not roll onto the track.  But imperceptible for our purposes, I think.

 

 

By no means. That's a modern standard (i.e. late Victorian). Many if not most stations up to at least the 1860s were built with platforms sloping towards the rails. They were, of course, not very high at the rail - only 1' 6" to 2' 0" above rail level, so doesn't help much with raising the station building. Raising platforms of that period was a very slow business - Culham station still had a low platform in the early 1990s when I was using it.

 

The tragedy at Wellingborough in September 1898 was that all the platforms had been rebuilt as part of the station improvements with the opening of the Higham Ferrers branch, with the exception of the down main platform, off which the post office barrow rolled into the path of the Manchester express.

[Buhar]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 

By no means. That's a modern standard (i.e. late Victorian). Many if not most stations up to at least the 1860s were built with platforms sloping towards the rails. They were, of course, not very high at the rail - only 1' 6" to 2' 0" above rail level, so doesn't help much with raising the station building. Raising platforms of that period was a very slow business - ber 1898 was that all the platforms had been rebuilt as part of the station improvements with the opening of the Higham Ferrers branch, with the exception of the down main platform, off which the post office barrow rolled into the path of the Manchester express.

Thanks Stephen, I'll amend my post appropriately.  It was the Wellingborough accident I obviously had in mind, but I mentally dated it 20 years or so earlier.

 

Alan

[Hroth]

I always wondered why the barrow rolled onto the tracks at Wellingborough, I don't think platform slope was discussed in Red For Danger (though I'll have a look now!).

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Buhar said:

Thanks Stephen, I'll amend my post appropriately.  It was the Wellingborough accident I obviously had in mind, but I mentally dated it 20 years or so earlier.

 

Looking at the Board of Trade Requirements for new railways here:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Requirements1902.pdf

section B paragraph 12, we find 3' 0" above rail level, or 2' 6" in exceptional cases, that being the absolute minimum. No mention is made of the direction of slope. 

 

This version of the document is a draft for revision, according to the Railways Archive website, for a 1902 edition; it carries the dates 1892 on the first page and 1885 against Henry Calcraft's name. (Calcraft was Permanent Secretary of the Boad of Trade.) So decoding the "track changes" (nothing new under the sun, Microsoft) we have:

 

1885: The height of the platforms above the rails should not be less than 2 feet 6 inches.

 

1902: The height of the platforms above rail level to be 3 feet, save in exceptional circumstances and in no case less than 2 feet 6 inches.

 

Of course these requirements apply to new works; there was no compulsion to bring existing infrastructure up to these standards.

 

Lt.-Col. Yorke's report into the Wellingborough accident is here:

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Wellingborough1898.pdf

He considered the slope of the platform at Wellingborough excessive; well beyond the requirements of drainage, and recommended the platforms should be made level, if under cover, or if some slope for drainage was considered necessary, the slope should be away from the platform edge. It is interesting, though, that this recommendation didn't make its way into the BoT Requirements in the above revision.

 

Platform height was discussed by the committees of the Board of the Midland Railway in 1883:

 

Traffic Committee minute 23702 of 20 December 1883

Height of platforms

                              Read minute No. 6479 of the Way and Works Committee of December 7th, 1883, referring for the consideration of this Committee the recommendation of the Engineer that in future the standard height for platforms at passenger stations shall be, at London Suburban and large and important stations, three feet, and at other stations two feet six inches.

                              Resolved that the standard height to be three feet for London and London Suburban stations, but that two feet six inches be the standard height for all other stations, except by special direction of the Traffic Committee.

 

In other words, they declined to take their Engineer's advice in its entirety, but at least were complying with the BoT requirement of a few years later. Again, this refers to new works.

[Edwardian]

Thanks both.

 

Subject to final measurements, it looks like 6mm, 18", is the above rail height of the platform in order to match the lower footboards of WNR carriages. As pointed out, 1'6" to 2' is the sort of height one might expect of a platform built in the 1850s. 

 

Sometimes these older platforms were raised in later years at the platform edge, sloping back to the station building. Thus, any raising of CA's 1850s platform would not help with the issue of the train shed roof height.

 

Rather than do that, if I retain lower footboards, 18" above the rails remains sensible. 

 

We have been proceeding on the assumption that a construction over the line would not necessarily be bang on the line's loading gauge and that there would be some leeway. Adrian Marks kindly addressed the fact that railways operated to both a loading gauge and a higher construction gauge, and of great interest are the examples he has provided, and, although he hasn't been able to give construction gauges for all of the neighbouring lines, his sample suggests to me that 14' might reasonably regarded as a sensible minimum construction gauge for the WNR:

 

Great Eastern Railway
Maximum loading gauge: 13' 0"
Minimum construction gauge: 13' 9".

Norfolk & Suffolk Joint Railways
Maximum loading gauge: 13' 9"
Minimum construction gauge: 14' 0"

GN & GE Joint Line
Maximum loading gauge: 13' 9"
Minimum construction gauge: 14' 3"
(Ramsey & Somersham line worked to the GER gauge)

Midland Railway
Maximum loading gauge: 13' 9"
Minimum construction gauge: 14' 0"

Great Northern Railway
Maximum loading gauge: 13' 9"
Minimum construction gauge ?

Midland & Great Northern Joint:
Maximum loading gauge: 13' 6"
Minimum construction gauge ?
 

As I mentioned, I can rob a little extra height by such things as a camber to the beam supporting the end screens.  I've looked again at this. If I make the eaves timbers 3.5mm (9 1/2" deep, as opposed to 12"), and give a maximum camber of 2mm at the apex, which should give 1.5mm over the centre of the tracks, I ought to be able to sneak an extra 2mm or 6" of height, so could end up with 14'6".

 

14'6" is more than enough based on prototype examples given above, though there is no problem in exceeding a minimum construction gauge, the extra 6" is perhaps merely prudent when working within model railway tolerances. 

 

So I think, I can achieve a height above the rails of 58mm (14'6") over the centre line of the tracks where the tallest elements, locomotive chimneys, will pass.   

 

EDIT: Crossed posts with Stephen.

 

The island platform arrangement at Birchoverham Market, which serves the mainline traffic, is an 1880s rebuild. As such, the platform was intended to be significantly higher than the original 1850s platform (now the branch platform), which would remain the same height as that at contemporaneous CA.

 

Thus, Stephen's is a useful note:

 

"1885: The height of the platforms above the rails should not be less than 2 feet 6 inches."

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Edwardian
Further thoughts

[Edwardian]

I am vexed.

 

I do not see any way my Sharp Stewart prints can be motorised in the way intended by the producer.  The 00 chassis will not even accommodate the LRM motor mount that is recommended and I have doubts that even the tiny Mashima motor will fit with a doubled-ended shaft and flyweel. 

 

There is not enough width between the frames on the 00 version to fit any motor mount I've seen and, as previously mentioned, it will be touch and go whether I can shave enough of the less visible boiler sections away to accommodate the driving wheels. 

 

I would be very surprised if anyone has built a motorised one of these in 00 as suggested by the producer as, frankly, the parts are just not designed to accommodate even the recommended wheels, motors gears and mounts in this gauge. 

 

So, if I am to motorise this there will have to be significant hacking about of this brittle 3D printed medium and the recommended motorisation solution, reliant as it is on an out of production motor, appears to offer no real advantage over possible alternatives.  3D print was supposed to speed things up, but now I feel rather like a chap who has invested one of those poorly designed old brass kits that were literally impossible to build as designed.

 

First things first, I have to file down the chassis to create a c.8mm wide space for a motor mount. If I can do that, I might still have options. 

 

I return, then, to my previous thought that I should try a High Level motor and gears:

 

1015 Iron Core motor

 

With the Roadrunner Plus gear set

 

At 7.8mm width over the mount, I have a fighting chance of filing down the frames just enough without them snapping to fit this mount, and, as previously mentioned, if necessary I can angle the motor down into the the firebox.  One fortunate thing is a lack of frame spacers in the way.  

 

I think I shall have to order a motor and gear set to see. 

 

Frankly the very things that doubtless give the finescale modeller joy are precisely the aspects of the High Level products that evoke dark and hostile suspicions in my mind. Condemned, in the eyes of this bodger and basher, by their own words:

 

- "Finish-to-Fit, which is standard engineering practice to achieve a precise fit of parts." Great, or would be if I were a standard engineer.

 

- "We have intentionally etched hole sizes for shafts and bushes slightly undersize, so in most cases they will need to be carefully opened out to match the components."  Thanks

 

- "...., if you have one, a digital vernier, then adjust the width by gentle tweaking". You're joking, right?

 

- "This can be a tricky job". Relative to all the other stuff I'm already have kittens over. Really great! 

 

- "Try making a slight ‘chamfer’ on the leading edge of your gearshaft". Wish me luck!

 

I could go on, but it's too depressing. 

 

I'm coming round to the somewhat perverse view that anything that requires such a degree of precision hasn't been well-enough engineered! Put another way, if something can't work to the tolerances I can work to, it's a poor design!  In fact, I am increasing viewing the word "precision" with a good deal of distaste. 

 

However, if, by some miracle, or likely by some entire series of benign divine interventions, I manage not to destroy the loco frames and manage to assemble one of these byzantine gear sets so that it actually works, I shall probably keep doing this and not bother putting in further effort trying to make the original misconceived recommendations work for the two sets I have of that stuff. 

 

But I warn you, iron is likely to enter my soul during this process.  

 

First, I do have a question, however.

 

High Level offer the following ratios:

 

34:1 for express passenger locos;

45:1 for mixed traffic; and,

60:1 for goods and shunters

 

My LRM gears are 1:50

 

Based on this, I am assuming that 60:1 would suit the 0-6-0 goods tender class, so the question is, I suppose, whether to do the same with my small 2-4-0 passenger tender class, or whether to opt for the 45:1. I tend to the latter choice, but would canvas learned opinion before deciding what to order. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinnylinny]

As I've been looking into narrower-than-standard motor-gearbox combinations for the HOn30 4-4-0 lately, you have me wondering if any of the sets I've been looking at might help.

It appears that the previous photographs of the 3D printed Sharp Stewart locos in this thread have been lost in the Great Picture Disaster. Would there be any chance of some new ones appearing, shewing the chassis, what access there may be to the inside of the boiler, and some measurements of the distance between the frames?

One of the ranges that appealed to me was the Northwest Shortline range of gearboxes, which are narrow and screw together (no fold-and-soldering required!)

An couple of their gearboxes are shewn here, with H0 wheels on a 3mm axle, although they also offer gearboxes for 1/8" axles. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Skinnylinny

[Annie]

8 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

One of the ranges that appealed to me was the Northwest Shortline range of gearboxes, which are narrow and screw together (no fold-and-soldering required!)

Gosh I remember those.  They were fairly easy to find here in NZ due to the popularity of US H0 scale.  Absolute simplicity itself to assemble and they did exactly what was written on the tin.

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

whether to do the same with my small 2-4-0 passenger tender class, or whether to opt for the 45:1

 

How fast must they go?

 

speedcalculator.xls

 

eg:

Motor RPM +/- 20,000

Gearbox 45:1

Driving wheels 6'

Top speed c.95mph

 

Gearbox 60:1

Top speed c.71mph

 

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I'm coming round to the somewhat perverse view that anything that requires such a degree of precision hasn't been well-enough engineered!

Having spent the weekend speed-running wagon builds with instructions like 'For some reason, the space between solebars is too narrow...', 'The buffers have been made too big to fit the moulded holes...' etc I share this view.

 

But.

 

In the end the b*ggers went just fine. A little expectation management, a little trial and error, and a little luck together went a long way. Still quite a lot of frustration but if I wanted those wagons there is currently only one way to get them, and I'm glad I persevered.

 

All the quoted comments, save gear shaft, could be said of etched wagon running gear after all, and they're not deemed to be beyond the average pre-Grouping modeller. I would suggest that your talents and skillset exceed this threshold...

 

Given that no matter how it goes with your existing prints more will be required, perhaps @billbedford of Mousa could have a chat with you and the 2-4-0 designer about what resin he uses, which is both tough as boots...

(Considerable force being applied to both grip and bend; easily more than I could apply to an equivalent whitemetal piece)

 

...and yet capable of remarkable detail

Note the saftey loops, which are independent of the brake rods, as well as the  and brake lever/pin guide. As detailed as brass, but more resilient. The pic is as cruel as it is poorly lit,  and shows that I've not yet had the file to it yet - just a waft of primer to interrogate the print - but I'm confident it'll take it just fine. Pretty impressed with the material, hoping information on it can be shared with other commercial printers...

 

Presumably that would be a conversation to bring up redesigning the models to take extant drivetrains, too.

 

Forgive my wading in, but changing circumstances mean I'm now paying close attention to how your SS 2-4-0s develop and I'm keen for a positive outcome for entirely selfish reasons... :)

[drduncan]

James,

 

While I can understand your frustration at the design issues for your printed loco, you are being a bit unfair as to the quality of Chris Gibbon’s products - they are second to none. I’ve built a few of his gear boxes and chassis kits and while they can seem intimidating when you read the instructions, if you do what he says, in the order he says it, your are almost certain to get a smooth running end product. (I know, who’d have thunk’d it… instructions that work and modellers that follow them, it will never catch on….)

 

With regard to holes being deliberately under size, be very grateful - the alternative is something that will run like a a bag of spanner’s.    If you don’t have a set of cutting broaches I think Expo tools will sell you a set of 6 that will do the job (and quite a few other ones) for under a tenner - they are worth getting. 
 

As to a chamfer on the gearshaft - it’s just to help you avoid pushing it on wonky. There are two ways to do this. First, pop the shaft in a drill, set in motion, gently apply file for a second or two and hey presto a chamfer. But you can also fire the file into anything to hand, like your hand, or other bit of soft tissue… so I don’t recommend this method. Second approach is hold shaft in your non master hand between thumb and fingers so you can twist it, in the other hand grasp your file (bastard cut if you must but second cut preferred), stroke across edge of shaft at 45 degree angle while twisting it as already mentioned. Do it three times (but no more) and you’ve done it.

 

If I have been teaching you to suck eggs, sorry, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel (does the WNR have such things?) and it really isn’t an oncoming train (because the printed locos aren’t running yet…if it is a train well done for getting the bast&@d things running….)

 

Duncan

 

[drduncan]

Oh it’s also worth taking the late and much lamented Ian Rice’s advice to keep a special drill for top hat bearings/horn blocks - a 1/8 one for driving wheels and a 2mm one for pony, bogie or tender wheels. Don’t use them on, or for anything else.

 

D

 

[Dave John]

Go for the highest ratio you can fit in , 60:1 in this case. What you need is a loco that is as controllable as possible at low speed for accurate coupling up and running round, the short model railway distances make maximum speed a bit irrelevant. 

 

That little 670 class 0 4 2 I made a while back has a 60:1 HL box , goes like a rocket above about 9 V  but it is still very controllable. 

 

 

[Buhar]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

- "Finish-to-Fit, which is standard engineering practice to achieve a precise fit of parts." Great, or would be if I were a standard engineer.

You probably are, you just have an excess of trepidation in the way.

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

- "We have intentionally etched hole sizes for shafts and bushes slightly undersize, so in most cases they will need to be carefully opened out to match the components."  Thanks

That's standard etching procedure (turned bearings are usually a tad undersize too) and necessary when you have the inexactitude of chemicals eating the metal away. A set of broaches from Squires or similar is a good investment anyway; you just twist them in the hole and keep trying the part until the bit that you want to go through does just that.  It'll only need a tiny bit of metal removed and in practice if you go a turn too far it'll still work.  They'll help with bearings, handrail holes, ventilator mountings spectacle holes (if big enough).  As with a drill bit, if you're doing a few holes you can put a wee bit of tape round the broach to mark how far you need to go up the taper. 

 

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

- "...., if you have one, a digital vernier, then adjust the width by gentle tweaking". You're joking, right?

Aldi and Lidl both sell these from time to time for a tenner or so, I think Lidl have them in the middle at the moment.  Very useful for boiler diameters, back to backs and "what size is this drill bit".  

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

- "This can be a tricky job". Relative to all the other stuff I'm already have kittens over. Really great! 

Put the kittens away, man.  It's not a tricky job, honestly.  Just read the instructions (without glazing over or raging wildly, Jacob Rees-Mogg had no involvement in them), follow them, work carefully and use a little set square to get things at right angles.  It'll be comfortably done in an evening.

 

Have a watch of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UadhuvguOJQ

 

That said, that Northwest Shortline box looks a possible way forward.

 

Alan