By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Forum House Ad Zone

darjeeling locomotive

latest drawings

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
1 2 3 4 Next > Last >>
peter ravenscroft03/07/2010 14:38:33
100 forum posts
3 photos
hello
        i am building the new darjeeling loco and have just started the rear beam are the drawings correct ? or are they a copy of the front beam '
if you scale the drawing up to the correct size you will find that the beam is 2" deep any comments or is this an error (posibily due to the editor's demise get well soon)  
regards
peter
 
 
 
JasonB03/07/2010 15:55:16
avatar
25215 forum posts
3105 photos
1 articles
Well that would match the dimensions, 1 1/2" verticals plus two 1/4" thick plates.
 
Front Beam is dimensioned smaller at 1 3/8" plus twice 1/4"
 
Jason

Edited By JasonB on 03/07/2010 15:56:44

Edited By JasonB on 03/07/2010 16:11:25

peter ravenscroft03/07/2010 18:20:49
100 forum posts
3 photos
thats the vetical measument the beams are supposed to be made from 1 1/2 x1/4 material but if yuo measue the rear one you will find it is 2" with 3/8 x1/2 front spacer and 3/4x3/8 rear spacer
regards
peter
JasonB03/07/2010 18:39:02
avatar
25215 forum posts
3105 photos
1 articles
Ah Got you now, you are talking about the plan view from inner face to teh outside of the curve which is dimensioned 1 1/2" but the 3/4" spacer looks a lot less than half that dimension,
 
So yes there is either a wrong dimension or its drawn out of scale/proportion, I would go with the former.
 
One would have expected it to be 1 7/8" by the addition of an extra 3/8" to the spacers but it scales at over 2" but then again I do feel that the drawings are sometimes compressed to get them to fit the mag layout
 
Jason

Edited By JasonB on 03/07/2010 18:44:55

peter ravenscroft04/07/2010 11:48:52
100 forum posts
3 photos
thanks Jason
 i thought it was me not reading the drawings correctly i have the works drawings but it does not show this beam so i think i'll go with 2" i think the dimension should be 2 1/16 o/a no doubt time will tell
regards
peter
Donald Mitchell04/07/2010 17:16:21
avatar
90 forum posts
3 photos
I have been authorised by my good friend Raymond McMahon to clarify the point raised by Peter Ravenscroft in regard to the apparent mistake in the drawings about the rear buffer beam.
 
Raymond does not use the internet, I am in constant conversation with him and can clarify any points raised.
 
On page 18 of M.E. issue 4381 at the top right hand side of the drawing there is a vertical measurement shown as 1.5" (the back to front o/a measurement of the beam)
 
This 1.5" dimension was not drawn by Raymond on the original plans and should not be there, it has been added (obviously in good faith) by someone at M.E. who assumed the dimension was missing and that it would be the same size as the front one, but its not !
 
Peter has correctly sussed out that the back to front measurement of the beam should be 2.1/16 o/a
 
I hope this clarifies the point for all.
 
Regards.
 
Donald Mitchell
Castle Douglas
Bonnie Scotland
peter ravenscroft05/07/2010 16:42:09
100 forum posts
3 photos
many thanks donald
i have made the beam this morning and it has worked out ok
please thank raymond for me it's a loco i have always wanted i started to buid one in 5" gauge but it was turning out too big for me to transport i still have all the bits for the 5" and maybe i'll photo the 2 together
regards
peter
Donald Mitchell08/07/2010 15:52:07
avatar
90 forum posts
3 photos
Hi, Peter Ravenscroft, I have sent you a personal message.
 

Donald Mitchell
Castle Douglas
Bonnie Scotland
Dusty25/07/2010 16:12:15
498 forum posts
9 photos
Hi to all who are building this Loco.
   Just a reminder to those of you who are using 3mm plate for the frames to compensate for the slight difference in thickness from 1/8" plate. If you make the front beams and the angle which joins front and rear frames together 15thou wider and also the axleboxes 7thou narrower where they fit through the frames, you could save a lot of heartache later remembering to make compensation in valve gear components, fly cranks, cylinder bolting faces etc etc etc. No, I have not started building yet, another project to finish first, Then I will start. You may not think that such a small difference can affect the loco, I can assure you it can, having built a narrow gauge o/s frame loco I speak from experience. From what I have seen it appears that leaving the rear frames as the are will not matter, allwats remembering to adjust the joing braket fabrication.
Dave Harris29/07/2010 19:21:06
28 forum posts
Having just read the latest installment for the 'Indian Steam locomotive' I am somewhat concerned about drawing being provided ie
 
Wheel section drawing: measurments given - 9/16'' overall thick but then we are given a tread width of 3'8'' and a tyre width of 5/32'' which do not add up to 9/16'' ?
 
Axle drawings show the outer parts which i assume are machined to accept the wheel as 0.531'' for the rear axle and then 0.468'' for the front axle? i would have assumed that the front and back wheels would be of the same thickness as no differencew is shown on the wheel profile drawing mentioned above?
 
Also, why do we have some measurements in imperial and some in decimal, surely we should have all measurements to one 'system'?
 
A confused novice???
JasonB29/07/2010 19:32:51
avatar
25215 forum posts
3105 photos
1 articles
The wheels do not mount onto the 0.531" & 0.468" long ends of the axle, if they did the fit would be a bit loose as they are bored 5/8"
 
Look at the photos, wheels are inboard of the bearings
 
As for the missing 1/32" on the wheel drawing it could be the flange is 5/32" with a 1/32" radius at the base of teh flange where it flows into the tyre, I'm not enough into locos to be sure of this but you should be able to find the details in any table of wheel standards.
 
Jason

Edited By JasonB on 29/07/2010 19:34:19

Edited By JasonB on 29/07/2010 19:51:37

Dave Harris29/07/2010 22:38:42
28 forum posts
Thanks for the comment re the fit of the wheels on the axles, i will try reading 3 times before i put fingers to keyboard!  However my comments about mixing decimal and imperial measurements still stand for a response from the editor; and regarding wheel standards, where does one find those, and perhaps the editor could confirm your assumption?
JasonB30/07/2010 07:38:36
avatar
25215 forum posts
3105 photos
1 articles
No I can't see why the dims are fraction & decimal, the only time I would expect it is if the size is not a fractional one and therefor has to be given in decimal. Decimals are sometimes used on fraction drawings where a size is more critical but that does not seem the case here.
 
If you read the first few lines about the axles you will see why the lengths are different.
 
Still it could be worse, the Rena gear drawings have no sizes for the hole on the smaller gear and don't even have a hole shown on the larger one!!. David perhaps you could ammend this as I think you are redrawing this?
 
Most of the ME books such as Model Engineers Handbook give wheel standards, as I say I'm not into locos so can't give you a decent explaination.
 
Jason
KWIL30/07/2010 09:16:13
3681 forum posts
70 photos
There used to be a convention that if given in decimals the tolerance was tighter than fractional, however as most MEs work to "fits" this does not necessarily arise. When did you last see a tolerance stated on a ME drawing?
Ian S C30/07/2010 10:11:41
avatar
7468 forum posts
230 photos
Hi, I think the normal is that if a dimention is in fractions, use a rule, and if in decimals use a micrometer. ie., 1 1/2" say +/- say.005"-.010" or as good as your eyes will allow, Decimal, for rough working I use +/- .002" but usually much closer, unless the fit is specified, then work to that.Ian S C
peter ravenscroft30/07/2010 14:55:23
100 forum posts
3 photos
i have just read the latest posts with interest because i think there is an error.
 in the write up it says that the rear axle is smaller to accommidate the pump eccentrics but in the drawings it shows it the other way round which is the right one as progress is now stopped
regards peter
JasonB30/07/2010 16:47:49
avatar
25215 forum posts
3105 photos
1 articles
You must have a different magazine to me as the rear axle is shown at 0.718" and the front at 3/4" . I've always found 0.718" to be smaller than 0.750"
 
The rear axle is LONGER but thats is to suit the cranks and is clearly stated in the first few lines of the axle description as I mentioned above
 
Jason

Edited By JasonB on 30/07/2010 16:49:28

David Clark 130/07/2010 18:29:29
avatar
3357 forum posts
112 photos
10 articles
Hi There
Rina gears
I believe the gears are standard gears.
However, as the small gear is fitted to the crankshaft, I suggest that 3/8in. diameter would be a suitable bore size for this.
As the large gear fits on the cam mounting shaft, a running fit on 1/4in. diameter might be suitable.
I did not have time to redraw this so the illustrator did it from the information on the original drawing.
 
regards David
Dusty30/07/2010 18:35:34
498 forum posts
9 photos
I have looked at the axle drawing and am of the opinion that the wheel back to back dimension is wrong. These are my reasons; The axle is 3 and 3/16ths for the back to back dimension added to this is the width of the flange x 2 =5/16 added to the previous 3 3/16 = 3 1/2".
 this is far to tight for a normal track let alone one where the gauge may be a little tight. The effect of this would be to cause the wheels to climb the track thereby derailing the loco this would be very evident on curves. The dimension should be, in my humble opinion no more the 3 1/8 for the back to back dimension.
 It would also improve running if the wheels were coned by about 2 degrees, this would help centralise the loco on the track. I am ready to be shot down in flames.
David Clark 130/07/2010 18:52:02
avatar
3357 forum posts
112 photos
10 articles
Hi There
Yes, that 1 1/2 should not be there.
I expect the illustrator left it in from doing the front beam.
Usually I catch these errors but I only came out of hospital Thursday night and went to press Friday so missed it.
 
We would not change dimension from imperial to metric or vice versa.
Although we make every effort to ensure everything is correct, occaisonally things will slip through.
I found this post by accident. If anyone spots an error, please email me so I can print a correction.
regards David
 
 

Edited By David Clark 1 on 30/07/2010 18:52:20

1 2 3 4 Next > Last >>

All Topics | Latest Posts

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!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

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
Support Our Partners
cowells
Sarik
MERIDIENNE EXHIBITIONS LTD
Shopping Partners
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "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

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest

 

Donate

donate