Falcor

Part 1 and part 2 of the article have now been published in M. E. magazine ... unfortunately the gremlins seem to have produced a few faults in the production of the drawings ... part 1 fig4 shows a brass lock-nut ... the size should read 0. 190 hex. not 1. 190 hex.

part 2 fig 17 shows a water gauge mount made from 3/16 square ph. bronze, it should read 3/8 square.

part 2 fig 18 shows a water gauge bush with the side arm having a diameter of 0. 158, it should read 0. 250.

part 2 fig 19 shows a brass collar "to match fire tub" ... the last word should read "tube".

part 2 fig 20 shows a brass lock-nut with no thickness given ... it should read 0. 080.

Part 3 of the article is now in print ... however, the printing gremlins have struck again ... fig 22 on page 648 has 2 references to a notch cut into the internal threads ... the drawing no longer shows it to be an internal notch ... it looks like it should be external ... I have not tried this method to see if it works, but it was intended to be cutting halfway through the INTERNAL threads ... if this is as clear as mud then please add a comment to this thread and I will try to take a macro photo looking up into the base of the fitting at the 4.5 x 0. 5 thread ... I will then add the photo/s to this thread.

On the same drawing the removable bush is not made from " 0.5 dia hex brass" ... it should be 5/8 hex brass.

Figures 23 to 25 all have the same omission ... down at the base of each fitting is a length of 1/4 x 40 thread ... on each of these lengths of thread is an unmarked collar ... this is actually a copper washer.

It is now April 2018 and various locos have been fitted with the commercial filler valve ... it works beautifully ... it is slower than using my system with 3 valves ... but it is so much neater ... the only thing now needed is the supply valve !!!!

martin

Martin,

Thanks for correcting the errors. Now noted for a future build on completion of the series.

I think there will be a lot of confusion caused by the Falcor boiler drawings published in ME 4583. The first sheet is one side elevation with almost invisible dashed hidden line internal detail. There is a note about water level gauge block "on other side" but the note points to the fire tube. No other views are published on this sheet, but further details for boiler parts are published in later figures in the article.

A section view instead of the dashed hidden line view would be far clearer. Accompanying views of each end projected from the section, and a top view, would be the bare minimum views adequate to describe the boiler.

On the first sheet and elsewhere in the figures there is a note "file notch". The accompanying pictures show a feature more like a full scallop shaped cutout rather than a (small) notch in the usual sense. This feature would show up well in a top view and remove much doubt.

Dimension leader lines in Fig 16 do not extend to what they are intended to indicate and do not seem to line up with their intended destinations.

The magazine's illustrator should be ashamed of this effort. I understand that sometimes the original drawings supplied to are not optimal, complete, or correct but this is a very simple boiler and multiple accurate views could have been drawn with minimal time.

The illustrator could look at Neville Evans' or John Haining's boiler drawings published in ME for examples of clearly drawn boiler design in minimal views.

With virtually no internal parts except the main fire tube the hidden detail lines are more than adequate for me as they just show the thickness of the barrel and the flanged end plates. (Small tube could have done with being shown full length) Fig 16 confirms position of bushes that may not be clear on the side view. Unlike using working drawings the magazine does have the advantage of containing photos which show the position of end bushes and the detail of the notch which may get mentioned later when the smoke box and chimney are fitted as the notch is to clear the chimney, possibly even marked off from the hole in the smoke box .

Martin's last paragraph suggests several have already been made to his design and we are lucky that he is an active member who can answer any queries should they arrise.

Back in the day when ME had a full time team of staff including draftsmen no doubt the drawings were different, I also have a set of Hainings original dylines taken from his originally supplied pencil drawings not even pen which are not very clear and drawn on all sorts of offcuts of paper so all different size sheets and boiler spread over several.

Edited By JasonB on 16/05/2018 07:17:35

Edited By JasonB on 16/05/2018 07:54:45

TO JEFF ... my apologies for your confusion ... there are a few parts of the boiler and fittings which have arrived in the magazine looking slightly different from my original drawings ... my original copies do look a lot clearer than the magazine pages ... I admit I am not the worlds best draughtsman ... I put this in M. E. magazine many years back ... I will try to find the reference ... it does clarify the difference between amateur and professional draughtsmen ...I cannot always produce what a professional person expects.

The boiler is on page 499 ... Fig 17 on page 501 shows the water gauge block as intended ... my original boiler drawing does not have an arrow indicating the fire tube.

The boiler is on page 499 ... the "notch" or "scallop" is shown in photos 7 and 9 on page 501 ... hopefully they show what it should be.

Fig 16 on page 501 is again not quite the same as I drew.

Possibly the modern world has changed and become not what many of us expect ... possibly the present magazine draughtsman does not build many boilers ... Jason B has hit the nail squarely on the head ... the magazine no longer has a full-time of draughtsmen and builder ... I try to accept many things, but have to expect I do not always get what I would like ... you sound as if you are well-versed in drawing techniques ... please read the message in an old copy of M. E. when I find it.

martin

JEFF ... I have found the reference I was talking about ... Model Engineer magazine dated 6 November 2009, on page 568 the letters page ... basically it says I cannot draw for the "proverbial toffee" ... I just enjoy building things ... there is my letter and a comment from another reader ... all the points in my letter still apply ... the only difference is that the lights in my workshop are, of necessity, getting brighter.

martin

Part 4 of FALCOR is now published ... the drawing gremlins have added a few more incorrect details ... on P761, fig 26 there are 3 errors ... there is a piece of metal sticking up above the top edge of the frames, this should be 0. 5 wide ... just left of this protrusion its height should be 0. 25, not 0. 50 which is shown being a width ... this measurement has snuck in from somewhere.

On P 762 is fig 27 ... at the right side of this component, relating to a hole in the bottom right corner, the distance up from the lower edge is given as 0. 020 ... it should be 0. 20 ... this one is my fault ... I got the decimal point wrong ... sorry.

martin

Edited By JasonB on 25/05/2018 15:46:09

Just this morning, picked up the latest issue.....thanks for the corrections Martin....

Out of curiosity, how many parts are there to this project please?

TO JOHN ... not totally certain ... I leave that to the editor depending on space available in the magazine ... possibly 3 or 4 ?? it depends on how many pages he allocates to my article and how much to others in the pile.

martin

Martin

There is a reference to 16swg for the main boiler tube but nothing to say what the thickness and material are for the end plates.

I would guess the thickness is about 0.125 and they are copper-could you clarify please.

Pete

1/8" would be very thick for a boiler of this size, as I said in your other thread I would think the 16swg refers to boiler material not just the main boiler tube.

Re the boiler end plates.

If these are 16swg should they be flanged or a tight fit

If flanged can any one give guidance as to how to produce the flange.

Presumably its well anealed copper formed over a round former with a hide mallet?

Pete

Martin,

The fact is very few contributors to ME or MEW are professional drafters, it is inevitable that some drawings won't always be up to industry standards. I get everything from perfectly done CAD to (literally) workshop sketches on any random bit of paper.

What matters is that people aren't put off producing articles by a quest for perfection.

Obviously it is good to avoid gross errors where possible, but in the home workshop where parts are generally made to fit each other things like missing hidden lines, dimensions or details that are easily interpreted from the text, photos, other drawings or common sense aren't a problem.

Neil

The drawing shows the boiler end plates to be flanged. The flanges are formed using a suitably sized former and annealing the copper during the forming process..

The diameter of the former can be calculated from the internal diameter of the boiler minus the thickness of the endplate (doubled...) eg. if the boiler id is 2", and the endplate thickness is 16swg, then the former diameter is 2- (2x 0.064) .

Put a radius on the edge of the former when you bend the copper over, else it may tear if left too sharp...The endplate needs to be formed form copper sheet, circular, 2" plus the flange width....somewhere around 2 1/2" minimum to allow for the bending radius...anneal first then place the former in the centre of the disc, hold in vice and tap the edges to begin forming the flange...go round once, then re anneal, bend some more, repeat until the flange is formed....you could clean up the flange edge in the lathe or with a file to neaten prior to installing in the boiler tube...hopefully it fits...the dimensions are given only as a guide, check with the drawings for the actual boiler tube diameter

If you have a few minutes, these videos show the process of forming flanges for boilers at Blackgates Engineering - may be useful to you.

**LINK**

Further advice please on boiler construction

The two bosses for the water level gauge are shown as 3/8 and 9/16 bronze.

Do they have to be bronze as i am having difficulty locating these sizes.

If they have to be bronze there are so many different types and grades - what do I look for

What is the difference between phsophor bronze and bronze if any

Pete

You will probably have a job getting 9/16" but the next size up that is readily available is 5/8" . Should not be a problem getting 3/8" but a sit is such a short length why not just turn from a larger bit like the 5/8".

Yes they should be bronze as other metals such as brass can be attacked by chemicals in the boiling water.

College engineering have 5/8" & 3/8" and will do 6" lengths, the PB102 will do for bushes.

Jason Thanks for that however the bosses I refered to for the water gauge are square and as far as I can see College don't do square pb102

Pete

Jason Thanks for that however the bosses I refered to for the water gauge are square and as far as I can see College don't do square pb102 and I don't have the facilities to machine square bar from round or hex

Pete