Member postings for Redsetter

Surely the port will be closed at TDC, so it doesn't matter whether the piston overlaps it or not.

I haven't found the lack of an apron hand wheel on the ML10 to be a big problem, and I'm not sure that the ML7 item will fit without modification. What the basic ML10 does lack is a graduated dial on the lead screw.

Of course, if you've got a lathe, you can always make these things!

I'm not sure any 7.25" loco is really suitable as a first project, as even the smallest are big and heavy (and expensive) by most model engineering standards. If there was a proven design available a Pug would be no more difficult than, say a Tich or a Rail Motor. It depends on your interests, skills and facilities. It all takes time, and if you are lucky enough to have a field available, you perhaps have to decide whether your priority is to build a railway or a locomotive.

It looks very tempting at the price, but it will be a bit of a struggle without a full set of drawings. Best avoided, I think.

Gents, I think you should establish what sort of lathe Raph has and what he is using it for, before you start advising him on the motor.

Mark, With due respect, you seem to be digging yourself a very deep hole.

It is always best to use the correct parts if available, and conversions are seldom as easy as they look.

There are plenty of mini lathe spares around. Why don't you just fit a new motor of the correct type?

Machine tools are dangerous, and I think Nick Taylor's post says it all.

.

Edited By Redsetter on 20/05/2018 10:50:08

The right hand end lead screw bush is retained by a Mills pin which must be removed first. The left hand one is a simple press fit - at least mine does not have a retaining pin. You need to make a stepped drift to remove and refit them. With respect - just stop, have a good look at it, and think, before you start sawing, hitting and splitting.

Thank you Clive - I am on the case...

I have just started on restoration of an early ML10 from which the top slide is missing. There are not many spare ones about. It is not essential on such a small lathe, but it would be good to replace it ultimately.

Does anyone know of an alternative part which could be adapted? The ML7 type I think is too tall. I am thinking about one from a MIni-Lathe. OK, it is Chinese, but do you have a better idea?

If the castings will accept 1.1", then overboring the second cylinder to match the first will give the best results for the least work, so do it that way. Unless of course you are one of these model engineers who likes to make everything as complicated as possible.

I don't think points will be too much of a problem on a raised track.

Pm sent.

Ron, It was certainly not my intention to scare you, as you asked a very sensible question. As you can see there is no hard and fast answer. It depends on what you are trying to do.

For what it is worth, I have two unsprung 4 wheel driving trucks, both give a hard ride but neither is prone to derailments. However the situation with driving trucks is different as they carry more weight than a small electric loco.

It is important for a beginner to get something running, and if you have a simple unsprung design in mind that you can get on the track quickly, why not go for it? It is bound to need improvements of some sort once you have tried it, they always do. I think the key for an unsprung design is to make it as heavy as possible and not to make the chassis too rigid. Others may disagree!

It is in the axle box sliding bit.

This is not something you should ask model engineers, as many of them will say that of course it should be fully sprung, as per prototype. But you are not making a model - you are making a small locomotive to do a job, and have some fun with.

You can certainly get away without springing on a simple loco that is only going to run slowly, but a bit of "compliance," and not necessarily conventional springs, will improve running as you say, and give better adhesion, and it need not be a lot of extra work.

Look at the earlier Maxitrak 4 wheel locos for ideas. Some have two rigid axles and some have only one axle sprung, or pivoted centrally to provide compensation. These are successful commercial products that pull loads and stay on the track.

I think it is worth pointing out that the Warco 250/280 etc, are based on a German Wabeco design, and these are not the same machine as the "9x20" - e.g. Warco 918 and Chester 920, which are based on an Austrian Emco design. The general layout is similar, but they are certainly not identical or interchangeable.

Remember it is only a G clamp, basically, and it does not have to follow the exact profile of the bedways.

I found mine very useful.

I made mine by sawing and filing. It did not take long. Anything wrong with that?