Member postings for Diane Carney

Dick Allan has kindly replied thus :-

The .687 is an obvious error and should read .093 and taken to the forward end of the frame as calculated by subtracting the bottom line of dimensions from the overall 8.469 length. The two holes at the rear are not very critical as they are for fixing the struts to support the footplate. The pivot point is .840 vertical from the top corner of the frame. By comparison with the 5 holes at the back make the first .125 from the edge, and the second, as shown, a further .188 away. Easier still, leave them out until you come to fix the footplate.

Diane

I will get the tech guys to look into this on Monday.

Diane

Thanks Ian. The above post is edited.

Just a reminder to all - please use the Private Message function rather than publish your email.

Diane

Hi Fred

You only have to cilck on 'More postings' under the list of latest posts and they are all there. I think a lot of people bookmark this page rather than the Home page.
**LINK**

You can't link to unanswered questions, specifically.

Diane

Hi Neil
Yes, I know President - but that's the point. It's memorable because it's unusual.

Hi Geoff
Yes - sounds ... er... interesting! Was it for an early April issue by chance?

Has anyone ever designed or made a model of a Bolinder? (Sorry for wandering OT.)

What an interesting reply from Crich!

Steam trams are a bit like steam on the canals in a way - just not quite right for the job are they? As a means of propulsion, steam was 'leap-frogged' in both cases. Which adds to the interest I suppose.

Diane

Hi Henner

You will have to change what you buy when you next come to renew your subscription. Should be as simple as that. I think (but would have to check) you just cancel your old sub at the end of its course and start a new one.

Diane

Ron - would you consider submitting an article for publication in the magazine? It would fall very nicely into the 'something a little different' category!

Thanks
Diane

(Editor, Model Engineer)

Hello Ron

A very interesting project indeed. Not all model engineering involves the manufacture of machinery or vehicles. This is very welcome on this forum. Thank you for posting.

Diane

Two missing drawings are here. They will also be printed in M.E. a.s.a.p.

Bill

I have sent you an email.

Diane

Hi V8

I have not removed them - not becasue I'm ignoring you, but becasue nobody else seems too bothered. PM me if you still want them removing please.

I understand you can purchase a download from the Apple Newstand for a price for the current issues and a higher price for the archive. I am afraid I do not use this service so will leave it to others to steer this thread.

Diane

I have had an enquiry from an M.E. subscriber, Mr Malcolm Cox, who is building Edgar Wesbury's 'Perseus' as a first engine. He finds that there is no indiciation on the drawing of the relationship between the position of the bearing pillars and the trunk guide support and this cannot be calculated because other relative dimensions are not defined (i.e. te connecting rod and eccentric rod lengths).

He asks would anyone able to help him please telephone him on 0845 4588416 (a local call rate number). He is in rural Wiltshire and has no internet connection but would be delighted to hear from anyone. He is best contacted at the weekends.

Alternatively please PM me and I will pass on the information.

Many thanks
Diane

I think we all will.
I always found Geoff such a kind hearted gentleman and so generous in spirit.

Diane

That's the question... which 'Standard' are we working to? I will get the right one out.

No problem Jason. I am happy to leave the co-ordination to you.

In recent issues, Stewart has been pretty sharp at pointing out exactly those kinds of errors and has corected a few. Even I spotted one!!! I can't vouch for what has gone before, of course. And, to be fair to the illustrator, he does pick up on obvious errors on occasions. That said, we can not be expected to pick up on missing dimensions etc. as we are not constructing the part/model. Also part A might be mating with part B which may be several issues down the line. There is therefore no way of avoiding some errors getting through onto the page. Hence the section of this forum dedicated to correcting drawing errors.
I shall say no more as I am getting a sensation of deja vue! We've been here before, once or maybe twice...

Diane

JD - the illustrator simply redraws the drawings to make them suitable for publication. They are then meticulously checked against the author's original before being passed for print. He is not required to have any technical input whatsoever. He is skilled at what he does and very rarely makes an error. It is not on to blame him for anything missing on a drawing.

As has been mentioned, George Punter does indeed contribute to the forum occasionally but an answer may not appear immediately. I will ask him to take a look at this thread.

Diane

I was assured by Customer Services, whom I emailed direct and from whom I got an answer straightaway, that this problem had been sorted out directly with John Fox 3.

Diane

If you will bear with me.....?

There are currently eight locomotive series on the go. They all have to run their natural course. The new 'team' (me) can only introoduce policy change bit by bit. It was never going to happen in the first issue.

Please be assured that there will be a return to Workshop Topics very soon and I have a number of interesting I/C engine articles waiting for their turn. I am hopeful that we will have a major new traction engine series starting up in the summer and, as you know, anything to do with stationary steam will always catch my eye!

Please, tell me what you like. If you see something interesting, try to persuade the maker to write about it. That's what I have been doing all day at the Manchester Exhibition.... which was a great show, by the way

Diane

Henry sent me the following text which will appear in the next installment (issue 4453).
Forum users have the benefit of an advanced viewing. I hope it helps.

Diane

Looking at the drawings, the bearing length works out to be 17/64 inch long which is incorrect; this should be 15/64 inch long. Members of the M. E. Forum have suggested making the crank pin 1/32 inch longer to give 1/64 inch clearance when the end washer is nipped up. The crank pin is the correct length at ¼ inch long; if made longer - as has been suggested - this would take out the clearance between the rod and back face of the crosshead, when they pass, should the axle end float be all to one side. Theoretically there should be 1/64 inch clearance, however, depending on the builder’s tolerances, this may be a little tight so I suggest making the washer 3/32 inch thick instead of 7/64 inch as shown on my original drawings. This would give a minimum clearance of 1/32 inch and a maximum of 3/32 inch depending on how the axle floats.
This is a simple modification to the lengths of the bearing and washer which I hope will not have caused too much distress to those currently building the locomotive.