Forum sponsored by:
Northumberland locomotive additional dimension
| David Clark 1 | 08/07/2009 17:33:06 |
 3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
The position of the angular line of the cylinder centres runs out at 3/8in. from the extreme top of the frames.
regards David
|
| JasonB | 11/07/2009 20:45:20 |
 25215 forum posts 3105 photos 1 articles | The projected centre line of the cyl as drawn comes out a littel lower than 3/8. If the line of the front cut out of the frame is carried through (3/8" below top of frame) it does not meet the cyl ctr line where it exits the frame. If anything the cyl ctr line should pass through the top rear corner of the plate as thats where the dotted line is pointed?
Also on the subject of dims, can you confirm the position of the rear horn, the 2" dim from the back of the frame that passes through hole No 8 is a little further back than a centre line projected through the horn.
And before anyone says I know not to take dims from drawings but would expect a computer generated drawing to put things in the dimentioned positions.
Jason
Edited By JasonB on 11/07/2009 20:45:58 Edited By JasonB on 11/07/2009 20:47:55 |
| kevin gambrell | 08/08/2009 07:05:24 |
| 2 forum posts | What I find incredible is that the people that run ME couldnt find the effort to show the corrections in the second article on the build! rather they just blindley bumbled on with the secondpart of the build leaving people in the dark. Its ok for those of us with computers but I dont doubt many ME readers are not computer users. Yet another example of the down turn in quality of this once great publication! |
| Richmond | 08/08/2009 08:55:36 |
 73 forum posts 632 photos 64 articles | Hi Kevin,
David is better able to post his comments regarding your complaint. However, I will add my 2 penny worth
 The production process for each issue of the magazine takes 6 weeks, and as the magazine is published fortnightly you can understand why "errors" are not updated in the next issue as a matter of course. Where issues do come to light, they are published as soon as is practicably possible.
Further, whilst the publisher wantsand needs to keep the readership informed, as well as happy, it is the contributor producing the article or design that holds the ultimate responsibility for errors ( assuming the magazine hasn't made any themselves in reproducing the article ). Where the magazine makes a mistake, again it is published as soon as possible.
Another point you may not be aware of is that not all designs have been "proof tested" by people other than the designer at the time of publication. Even the best designs can have faults and drawing errors which do not come to light until people actually build one themselves.
Some drawings of designs are actually done after the fact, and sometimes as humans we also can't see the wood for the trees ... i.e. we are too close to see the errata.
Given the technology now available to readers in terms of the internet and forums such as this one people WILL become aware of issues before those that purely read the magazine, and as such gives people more chance to rectify issues earlier.
Perhaps those people who are members of clubs that use the forum could give thier fellow ( non internet ) members the info about errata .... I know in my club that when people start major projects there is considerable talk about it, and so I'm sure advanced warning would be welcome
Rgds
|
| David Clark 1 | 08/08/2009 09:17:04 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi Kevin
We print corections if we are notified of errors.
However, readers don't receive the magazine and imediately look for errors. It takes time for the erros to filter through. I am still waiting for the designer to phone me back about the 9/16 dimension.
I have checked drawings for errors as they are redrawn. I have spotted no errors created by Model Engineer staff yet. I go through the drawings with the original and check every dimension.
If the original drawings have errors, I am unlkely to spot them unless I build the locomotive, which I don't have time to do.
It is annoying for me that the drawings have errors bot thy are not of my making.
When I speak to the designer, I will ask him t check the remainderof the drawings.
Two locomotives have been built from these drawings so errors should have been found.
What do I do, print corrections as soon as any are found or pull the whole series and upset many readers?
I think we continue to publish.
regard David
Edited By David Clark 1 on 08/08/2009 09:18:07 |
| Pete W | 08/08/2009 10:43:22 |
| 5 forum posts | I reproduce below my post from the Northumbrian thread. Kevin makes his point a little stronger than I, but I would add that whatever defence is offered, this website boasts of 100 years of publication so lessons should have been learned by now.
..........................................................
My first ME was 4355 with the Northumbrian on the front cover. I am keeping the articles for future use but I am beginning to wonder whether it's worth carrying on.
Is it usual to have this many mistakes?
I offer the following comments:
Some of the photos show parts from future articles but not all the current ones. Not a problem in itself but could the current ones be highlighted to show their locations? I know black on black is the worst combination to photograph but electronic airbrushing could be used.
I suggest the adoption of a registration system for all drawings where each drawing has a number and a current issue reference. A central database then ensures you are always working from the latest issue of any particular drawing. Industry has used similar systems for donkey's years and it used to be done manually, now it's a software thing and easily done.
PS. Just a minor suggestion: Instead of a photo of the handsome author, how about a picture of the finished project at the beginning of all the articles in the mag? It would give us something to relate to and may generate more interest.
Pete |
| JasonB | 08/08/2009 13:21:31 |
25215 forum posts 3105 photos 1 articles | Well the latest issue dropped on the mat this morning and its good to see that the first batch of errata have been covered in print. One thing to bear in mind though is that some people will be buying alternate issues with just the relevant articles in so may miss corrections that are not included with the build series.
Could I suggest a "sticky" thread at the top of the Northumbrian section that can contain all the corrections that can just be accessed by David and Richmond. That way they will not be scattered all over the forum and mixed in with comments. A link to this thread at the end of each build article would also be helpful by directing potential builders to the latest revisions.
"Another point you may not be aware of is that not all designs have been "proof tested" by people other than the designer at the time of publication. Even the best designs can have faults and drawing errors which do not come to light until people actually build one themselves."
Quite a bit of weight has been given to the fact that two further engines have been built to this design (though probably from the original drawings not ME published ones) so that point does not really stand here.
Jason
PS on the subject of the latest issue the home page is once again a month out of date, this should really be a regular fortnightly job for the person with access to that part of the site. |
| Richmond | 08/08/2009 23:52:28 |
73 forum posts 632 photos 64 articles | Hi Jason,
I wasnt aware that 2 builders had completed the engine..... David has put us all right on that score....... my point still holds valid though ..... I know of several designs in the past where the article produced the "prototype"
Rgds
Keith
Edited By Richmond on 08/08/2009 23:53:24 |
| David Clark 1 | 09/08/2009 07:22:15 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
I am trying to sort this out.
I have not managed to speak to the designer yet.
Perhaps he is on holiday.
One engine and a working chassis has been built.
Paul who took the photos and built the prototype has been in contact and has agreed to check future drawings against his correction notes.
He has been away on holiday so did not know there was a problem.
regards david
|
| David Clark 1 | 09/08/2009 10:40:35 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
9/16 dimension on frames is correct.
No need to make new frames.
The 9/16inch dimension is correct.
It was originally 3/4 but was changed to 9/16inch as the pump stay was to close to the firebox front.
regards David
|
| JasonB | 09/08/2009 13:21:51 |
25215 forum posts 3105 photos 1 articles | This still does not explain why the cylinder holes come out further back than the drawing or photos show, when its laid out using the sizes on the drawing.
When the 3/4" dim was reduced to 9/16 was the 2 1/4" dim increased by 3/16"? Propoirtionally it still looks to be 2 1/4". Can you get a size for the axle centers as this will act as a check for the intermediate sizes. Thats a measured distance not obtained by just adding up whats on teh ME published drawings. The Springbok drawings with the current issue are laid out a lot better they have overall length and axle centers along the bottom and other items along the top.
Jason
Edited By JasonB on 09/08/2009 13:26:30 Edited By JasonB on 09/08/2009 13:33:10 |
| David Clark 1 | 09/08/2009 21:01:16 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
Drawing was modified for dimension but not redrawn so that is why it is not to scale.
The pump spacer was only found too close after drilling to original spacing.
That is why the original photos are slightly different to the new drawings.
The frames will work as drawn, the cylinders are ok.
regards David
|
| JasonB | 10/08/2009 07:29:36 |
25215 forum posts 3105 photos 1 articles | "Drawing was modified for dimension but not redrawn so that is why it is not to scale."
So the proportions of the drawing are based on 2 1/8", 3/4", 2 1/4" and 1 5/8" between the axles.
The lines were not altered but the position of part 6 was moved forward and its dimension altered to 9/16 (after the frames had been cut?)
So if one dimension was reduced Another must have increased which would seem to be the 2 1/4 one
If your post above is to be followed can you confirm that the bolt holes are as per this sketch and several other peoples layouts and not as the drawing visually shows or as Pauls engine.
Jason
PS still waiting for length of firebox support and vertical position of rear horn rivits, can't assume these positions now as the drawing and photos cannot be used as a guide.
|
| David Clark 1 | 10/08/2009 09:04:08 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
Rear horn holes are central on legs, 1/4inch from bottom then 3/8inch and 3/8inch centres.
regards david
|
| David Clark 1 | 10/08/2009 09:05:58 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
Firebox support is 2 inches long.
regards David
|
| David Clark 1 | 10/08/2009 15:53:46 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
I have finally contacted the designer.
The frames are incorrect.
We will have to publish a new set of drawings.
The frames will need to be remade 3/16 inch longer.
The designer altered the 3/4 to 9/16inch and forgot to increase the 2 1/4 to 2 and 7/16inch.
Rather than alter the engine to suit the 3/16 difference and possibly introduce other errors into the locomotive the decision has been taken to redraw the frames to the correct dimensions.
All drawings are being rechecked as we go.
regards David
|
| JasonB | 10/08/2009 17:01:09 |
25215 forum posts 3105 photos 1 articles | Thanks David
Thats what I suspected and I think your course of action will be the best in the long run although upsetting for those who have cut metal already. Better to buy new frames now than risk something more costly like a boiler being too long!!
Would it be possible to upload the revised drawing to this site, that way it will save people with net access having to wait for another six weeks for the revised one to come out. Robin has it on CAD and I'm sure could soon add the revised length an the two details above, if he's agreeable this could be added as a jpeg for all to see.
Jason Edited By JasonB on 10/08/2009 17:17:22 |
| David Clark 1 | 10/08/2009 19:51:25 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
Yes, as soon as the drawngs are redone, I will post them on here.
It is really annoying although no Model Engineer staff have caused the error.
If we left as is, the trailing wheels would foul the cylinders.
We move the cylinders we have to redraw the valve gear.
Then we have to shorten the boiler by 3/16 inch.
Better to apologise and ask people to make the frames again than to risk introducing more errors.
regards David
|
| David Clark 1 | 10/08/2009 19:51:26 |
3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi There
Yes, as soon as the drawings are redone, I will post them on here.
It is really annoying although no Model Engineer staff have caused the error.
If we left as is, the trailing wheels would foul the cylinders.
We move the cylinders we have to redraw the valve gear.
Then we have to shorten the boiler by 3/16 inch.
Where would it end?
Better to apologise and ask people to make the frames again than to risk introducing more errors.
regards David
Edited By David Clark 1 on 10/08/2009 19:52:19 |
| kevin gambrell | 10/08/2009 22:23:29 |
| 2 forum posts | How abour posting them in ME as well as on here for the people that dont have internet use. I just passed on to my 9 year old that he has to recut the frames! I dont have the time to check drawings that should be checked before going to print. You just lost a reader |
Please login to post a reply.
Magazine Locator
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
Latest Forum Posts
- *Oct 2023: FORUM MIGRATION TIMELINE*
05/10/2023 07:57:11 - Making ER11 collet chuck
05/10/2023 07:56:24 - What did you do today? 2023
05/10/2023 07:25:01 - Orrery
05/10/2023 06:00:41 - Wera hand-tools
05/10/2023 05:47:07 - New member
05/10/2023 04:40:11 - Problems with external pot on at1 vfd
05/10/2023 00:06:32 - Drain plug
04/10/2023 23:36:17 - digi phase converter for 10 machines.....
04/10/2023 23:13:48 - Winter Storage Of Locomotives
04/10/2023 21:02:11 - More Latest Posts...
- View All Topics
Support Our Partners
Shopping Partners
Subscription Offer
Latest "For Sale" Ads
- Reeves** - Rebuilt Royal Scot by Martin Evans
by John Broughton
£300.00 - BRITANNIA 5" GAUGE James Perrier
by Jon Seabright 1
£2,500.00 - Drill Grinder - for restoration
by Nigel Graham 2
£0.00 - WARCO WM18 MILLING MACHINE
by Alex Chudley
£1,200.00 - MYFORD SUPER 7 LATHE
by Alex Chudley
£2,000.00 - More "For Sale" Ads...
Latest "Wanted" Ads
- D1-3 backplate
by Michael Horley
Price Not Specified - fixed steady for a Colchester bantam mark1 800
by George Jervis
Price Not Specified - lbsc pansy
by JACK SIDEBOTHAM
Price Not Specified - Pratt Burnerd multifit chuck key.
by Tim Riome
Price Not Specified - BANDSAW BLADE WELDER
by HUGH
Price Not Specified - More "Wanted" Ads...
Get In Touch!
Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.
Digital Back Issues
Donate
Register
Log-in
Model Engineer Magazine
- Percival Marshall
- M.E. History
- LittleLEC
- M.E. Clock
ME Workshop
- An Adcock
- & Shipley
- Horizontal
- Mill
Subscribe Now
- Great savings
- Delivered to your door
Pre-order your copy!
- Delivered to your doorstep!
- Free UK delivery!
All Forum Topics > Model Engineer. > Northumberland locomotive additional dimension