Falcor

I'd be interested to see what was submitted before blaming the mag. Having helped Diane out on a number of occasions trying to decipher fag packet sketches I know what is sometimes sent in.

Jason,

Martin has already stated that there are differences between what he submitted and what appeared in the magazine....Is there a further step in the process whereby the errors/omissions can occur?

Several that I can think of. An article on the magazine's production methods would reveal many ways errors can creep in. There's a complicated maze between the author and his fans queuing in W H Smith!

Apart from human mistakes, minor software incompatibility is occasionally bothersome, like the recent example where dimensions on a drawing were printed so small no-one could read them. Very unlikely to be a human blunder - it should have 'just worked'.

The software used to produce the magazine has limitations that force the occasional risky bodge. Most obviously it's unable to typeset mathematical formula. Nothing new - old ME issues struggled with maths as well.

Dave

To Jason B please ... oh dear! oh dear ! my original drawing were sent to Diane and a second set were sent to Martin Evans a bit later on ... I still have my original drawings which were photo-copied and sent in to the magazine ... over the series I have corrected a few of my errors, but the majority have been caused in the drawing office. As an example ... in issue 4591, page 158 figure 42 shows the smoke box assembly ... at the front end is a ring to hang the door on ... my drawing shows a dotted line from top to bottom ... the drawing office has changed this to be a double solid line ... this has caused some confusion and has been described as a channel section ... rather difficult to machine I would imagine ! ... the editor has that drawing as a paper copy and also as a CD if it is necessary to check.

I know I am old-fashioned with my methods but I do not have access to any computerised equipment to produce 100% accurate drawings ... if we get to the stage where this is the only method the magazine staff can accept then I should go and hide in a cave along with a few other rejects ... this would leave the magazine free to only receive contributions from people who are totally 100% infallible and possess the latest methods of production ... that would be wonderful, but I am not sure if that would leave very many subscribers to the magazine ... I know I am not perfect because God says so ... but I wonder how many people live in that perfect world?

I wonder why we are having this discussion at this exact moment ? in issue 4592 on page 250 is the "postbag" column with a heading letter from someone in Tasmania ... he is also complaining about drawing quality ... it is a very long letter ! ... I sent an e-mail to the editor on Friday 3rd. of August as a reply to his letter ... this will be published, I hope, in a few weeks or a few months in a future "postbag" ... it would be very relevant to this discussion ... maybe if this string of correspondence is of enough interest it could be published here ? .. if I am not worthy then I shall head for the knitting needles and sell the lathe.

martin

Martin, I was not having a go at your drawings which I have not seen but making a point that some of what gets sent in can be quite difficult to work out what the author is trying to show.

Also by the time the drawings have been copied a few times, converted to pdf etc what may have been a dotted line on the original hand drawing may look more like a dirty solid one by the time it gets to the person doing the artwork.

I don't think the form the work is submitted in makes much difference as things can be drawn wrong in cad just as well as with pencil and paper. had this the other day where someone posted a drawing and took quite a bit of convincing that the dimension lines did not actually point to the feature they were supposed to so the part could not be made.

J

PS I hope the drawing projection thread won't get dragged up again following that letter in teh latest issue

Edited By JasonB on 05/08/2018 12:03:11

Don't do that Martin! I'm reading your work with interest even though I'm unlikely to build a Falcor. I'm more curious about how you did it, rather than the detailed plans.

When building from plans, I rarely trust them or my interpretation entirely. I don't have the training or background needed to speed read an industry correct 2D plan, so for me understanding any plan is about eliminating ambiguities.

Typically, I redraw parts as a way of understanding them. Quite often no more than scribbles on the back of an envelope but if needs must, I'll get more formal, escalating through drawing board to QCAD (2D), FreeCAD (3D), or Fusion360 as suits the problem. An accidental benefit of redrawing is that it often exposes mistakes and omissions in the original, and also suggests ways of making it.

One thing that stands out from Tony Reeve's letter is the number times assumptions about plans have led to disaster. Isn't it just a tiny bit surprising that engineering professionals jump to conclusions about the type of projection used? Did they miss that part of the training? Assuming European Plans are all First Angle, oh dear, there have always been exceptions!

One way of tackling the problem is to standardise drawings and produce them with highly disciplined methods, the other way is double-check. Much to be said in favour of both methods, and I suspect the second is more suitable for amateurs.

I'd guess drawing quality is likely to improve as more of us get into 3D CAD. With CAD you define the object, and the drawing is generated from it, not the other way round. The package unburdens the designer from error prone drawing methods, making mistakes less likely. True I find generated drawings impersonal compared with human efforts, but machines follow the rules.

Keep up the good work.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 05/08/2018 13:45:36

Amusing three page read, especially when so many have complained in the past about mistakes on the old ME archive classic loco's and the inability of "Someone" to correct the drawings. The old adage "There's many a slip 'tween cup and lip" is highlighted here.

In publishing, there's a BIG difference between what was classed as a draughtsman and the now AutoCAD driver.

Regards Ian

Martin

Fig 22 refers to a thread 4.5 x 0.5 which I presume is metric - is this correct as I can only find taps and dies for 4 mm x 0.5

Fig 45 shows a 0.250 diameter hole of set with a 0.125 pipe in it - is this right?

Regards

Pete

Hi Pete ... the metric tap is available from GLR KENNIONS LTD ... the tap is made by APEX ... my catalogue is dated January 2018, and the metric taps are on page 26 ... I have tried a tapping drill of 3.9 mm and also one of 4.0 mm ... both seem to work OK.

The hole you are talking about which is shown as 0.250 dia ... my original drawing shows it correctly as 0.125 dia !!

hope this is useful ... martin

I read with some amusement this thread as Martin's latest work is very similar to my own efforts. I sympathise totally with him. However I spent most of my working life in design offices various shall we say, still having a driving licence to drive a drawing board and seeing in the era of CAD. Even consumate professionals make mistakes on drawings and no matter how long you stare at a an alleged finished drawing the resident gremlin that resides on your shoulder will creep in and make the mistakes invisible to you.

Although I am not making this project I read the series avidly and some of the ideas (suitably modified) will creep into my efforts. I have only one slight criticism (constructive I hope) and that is about wheels and pony trucks. If the wheel standards to the BMRSB coarse scale are used the wheel back to backs can be set accurately at 28MM for 32 MM gauge track and 40MM for 45MM gauge track. This would give the prospective builder access to a wider running spectrum across the garden railway hobby.

Finally fi you want a wry smile at drawing office mistakes, I worked for a while in the 70s at a major truck manufacturer in R & D. A complaint from production came that the latest design and batch of steering boxes did not fit the chassis. Investigation revealed that although the company standards were all third angle projection, the draughtie concerned had drawn the box components and GA in first angle, hence we had a full batch of left hand drive steering boxes as that was the best interpretation the supplier could make of the drawings.

regards

Ian

TO the OILY RAG please ... thank you for your suggestion above ... my problem over the last few years has been that the commercial wheels I have used were not that accurate ... some of them have been best described as random ... this is why I have measured into the corners of the flanges ( as best as possible ) your idea for the back-to back is a good one ... some of my measuring ends up as needing a different spacer on different axles to allow for the wheel flange widths ... does that mean I should buy better quality wheels ? Is 50 p each wheel not enough ? I was aiming to ensure the wheels would go over some home-made points of 30 inch radius without jamming or jumping out of the tracks.

TO PETE RUSSELL please ... just a thought concerning the gas fill valve ... you have probably already solved this one, but if not, the valve is only tiny and delicate ... so it does not need smashing down hard with a big screw driver ... I took one of the flat screwdriver blades from my 1/4 hex. socket set ... it is 5mm wide ... using one of the grinding discs from a miniature drill I cut a notch up the middle of the blade ... wide enough and deep enough to clear the top of the valve ... this can be used to tighten the valve into the recess so the o-ring is clamped but not crushed absolutely flat ... finger-tight is about all you may need.

martin

Hello Martin, I know that a lot of commercially available wheelsets are to say the least variable. Whilst I was using them, I had a flypress and with suitable dollies I used to press them to ensure a fairly close back to back. Working now in 7/8ths (1:13.7) I tend to make all my own wheels and wheelsets. Again for a while I had the overlap of the press and used a slide fit with dollies on a shouldered axle fixing with the dreaded green Loctite. This I will continue. As a rough guide 16MM wheels (BMRSB Gauge 1 coarse scale) are 6.5MM thick including flange which has a theoretical width at the root of 1.5MM (or the imperial equivalents).

Running 7/8ths on 45MM code 332 rail I use 8MM width wheels in my designs and an old American rule of 2 x 2 for the flange. I.E. 2MM wide at the root by 2MM deep. If running on tighter curves I close the back to backs by a maximum of 0.5MM. I get by with this quite well.

And thanks, I have just added another item to my list of things to do and that is a mandrel backstop for the lathe I now have to make my axles, (usually 1/4" stock with 4MM dia. shoulder for wheel and 3MM dia running/bearing area.

Hope that helps a bit. and these things always get a bit contentious so I just aim to get close to the old fashioned standards.

regards

Ian.

TO THE OILY RAG please ... hi Ian ... again thank you for the information ... I have been building "things" for more than 60 years but only building railways for about 5 years ... any information is useful ... I am slowly building up lots of information files.

martin

Martin

Gremlins again?

Im lucky enough to have my August issue already - Fig 50 Lubricator cap there no legnth for the lubricator cap extension soft soldered in

Also fig 11m4th image on right theres no diameter given for the blower angle feed body and a ref to S.s. and no internal dimensions for 1/8 x 40 thread and drill through beyond

Regards

Pete.

Martin

When you modified the Roundhouse cylinders how did you deal with the existing 1/8 copper pipes silver soldered into the sides of the valve chest? - Drill out tap 4ba and plug with a brass screw?

Also is the T piece in picture 4 and the associated pipe in another issue.

Pete

Martin - sorry just another little query - how far up from the bottom of the boiler is the lower water gauge mount.

It looks about 1/3 the way up the 22 mm fire tube and therefore is this the same for the water filling bush?

Regards

Pete

HI PETE ...hopefully I can get through everything in order ... the lubricator handle length is not critical ... mine is about 2 inches, some people might prefer it to be low down or up at the top ... or it could have a cross handle, depends on personal preference.

The diameter of the blower valve ? do you mean figure 11 ? the steam valve is 1/4 hexagon or round, to match the 1/4 x 40 thread ... if you mean figure 13 which is the blower valve, the diameter is shown as 0.250 ... s.s = silver solder ... as regards the missing dimensions on fig 11 ... it is labelled as "fig 11" ... on my original drawing there are 3 short lines of typing which would be underneath the label "fig 11" ... these are :- drill 0. 062 for 1. 2 ... drill 0. 098 for 0. 655 ... tap 1/8 x 40 ... for the steam tee piece shown in photo 4 ... in my list of drawings the STEAM FEED TEE PIECE is shown as being in figure 53 ... hopefully this is in part 7 of the new magazine which I have not yet received ... if you say it is not there then it must be in part 8.

For the existing pipes in the cylinders ... the pipes were filed off flush and then carefully tapped 8 BA through the remains of the copper tube ... keep backing the taper tap out of the hole to make sure it does not stick and jam ... I used a brass 8 BA screw, cheesehead, length about 3/16 inch.

For the water gauge position again it is not totally critical ... look at photo 6 and 8 in issue 4583 back in March ... the bottom corner of the gauge mount is approx. in line with the lower part of the fire tube ... yes, the water fill bush is approx. in line with the water gauge mount, best seen in photo 8.

hope this is everything covered, martin

Martin - yes i did mean fig13 got description wrong - your measurments help thank you but the S.s. with an arrow pointing at the end is confusing . It already says silver solder two 1/8 pipes but if the body is made from the solid theres nothing to S.s. at that end

Figures in issue 5493 stop at 51 so T should be in part 8.

Regards

Pete

HI PETE ... I cannot see "S.s" on figure 13, however there is one appearance on figure 11, assuming that is the one you mean ? ... the letters "s.s" have moved in the printing process ... they were underneath, between the 2 copper pipes !

In figure 13 the 2 stubs of thread have shrunk in relation to the diameter of the body ... they are o.k. but look a bit small.

martin

Martin

On the boiler does the top bronze block overhang by 0.02 as the lower water gauge one does.

The top bronze block looks shorter than the lower one and no legnth or width is given or is it a 9/16 cube.

Pete