Llewellyn Loco Works #1

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

this might help match up with the pics of the motion bracket machining, the red line is the material held down. The two screws and the Xs mark waste that will cut off later. It is more accurate way to work and has more possibility of controlling the outcomes.

[tom_tom_go]

Thank you for going to all that effort.

The last picture shows what you are trying to make so I get it now.

I will sit at the back of class now

[bambuko]

Thank you for an excellent build thread Darrell.
I will follow it with great interest (just got Brian's book as well )

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

Thank you for an excellent build thread Darrell.
I will follow it with great interest (just got Brian's book as well )

It is a good book to inspire, however there are little traps if you are not careful, little errors and drawing errors and dimension errors.

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

My 0.10mm and 0.05mm increment drills is growing, the ones modified for bronze and brass and then the ones for steel and also spare ones, the stands are full and new stands are on order via ebay.



Also reorganised my stash of milling cutters aS I got some bargain ones as small as 1.00mm (30 year old UK made ones) from local industrial supplier. "Brisbane Industrial Agencies" family owned business with knowledge and they have marvelous stuff squirreled away in corners.



Last night was the 2.00 and the 1/16" slot drills in action, going around via the X Y co-ordinates using the DRO, The last past was .0.10mm reverse with a climb mill pass to give a sweet finish and to avoid corner pockets.









Cut the ends off, just a wee bit of filing to round corners, deburr and mill a 27 degree bit off the top. Yeah, one can mark out spot through etc etc, drill and file, but it was fun to mill and after 32 years I have some nice little collection of tools to enjoy.
Some will notice this all very different than B. Wilson's design, I did a fair bit redesign and corrections, we will see if I have a winner or ............

[bambuko]

It is a good book to inspire, however there are little traps if you are not careful, little errors and drawing errors and dimension errors.

It's a better book than many (if not most) model engineering books (and I have a lot of them).
I spotted few omissions as well already, but nothing serious.
There is a Yahoo group https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Steammodelloco16mm where there is a whole lot of info about corrections etc for Brian's book and design in a file folder called "Steam Trains in Your Garden"
Like yourself I tend to build everything on CAD before cutting metal - easier to sort things out on the screen

BTW would be very much interested in your revised valve gear.

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

It is a good book to inspire, however there are little traps if you are not careful, little errors and drawing errors and dimension errors.

It's a better book than many (if not most) model engineering books (and I have a lot of them).
I spotted few omissions as well already, but nothing serious.
There is a Yahoo group https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Steammodelloco16mm where there is a whole lot of info about corrections etc for Brian's book and design in a file folder called "Steam Trains in Your Garden"
Like yourself I tend to build everything on CAD before cutting metal - easier to sort things out on the screen

BTW would be very much interested in your revised valve gear.

I have many books and subscribed to ME mag since 1985 and also EIM and AME and LLAS and ................. The drawing issues...............

I do each part in 3D, then to the full working assembly of the parts. I do a 2D-A4 sheet for each part and I update if required after the part is made, so the chook scratchings (technical term for Dazza hand written notations) on my paper 2D drawing are sorted as I go. Rather than after and it all becomes a huge confusing pile of paper to edit into working drawings.
The pic is the assembly with many parts hidden but this is my revised valve gear at this time. I have not done a 2D general arrangement drawing at this time as I am currently work off the full assembly.



There are many little errors or omissions which reveal them selves when one is making the parts. The books 3D drawings have errors. Look at the combination lever carefully on page 50. The assembly does not match the parts. (upper pins, valve and radius rod) Check the page 37 drawing which could have had the valve gear geo dimensions on it, the 88mm is not correct, it measures closer to 92mm which is puzzling how that occurred on a CAD drawing? It must have been typed in rather taken off the drawing (snap to selected points). Also the link bracket mounting bolt heads are offset and the link is not centered between the brackets. 10BA thread on the valve rod will not through a 1.6mm hole. The offset mounting hole in the steam chest is on the drawing but no mention of it or dimension so it clears the steam inlet. It all could lead to mistakes by the builder and accumulative errors if one is not careful. Regards to the Comb lever the upper pins are 2.00mm and also 1.80 on the simplified lever, which influences the movement of the valve. I used 2.00mm for reasons of construction, but 1.80 would seem to be better. (The original valve gear geo would not allow a correct mid gear.) Water pump dimensions, throw of the pump eccentric ? Whistle tube wall thickness, grate fitting and locations, the pony truck etc........... I am aware of the 16mm group (and a member) and the I looked at the file and I was not confident as it seemed it was not comprehensive and I feared I was not sorting out the valve gear problem I was finding. Right or wrong that I may be, and I put the questions to the group. Anecdotal evidence/comments about the place suggested there was problems with the valve gear, but the plural of anecdotal is not fact, so I was heading down a path of possible confusion and so I decided to start from scratch, fresh, steps along the way. Example, the radius rod length does not match the link radius, that is not mentioned in the 16mm file..........etc. Am I right ? Am I on the silly path ? Who knows till I have a little puffer steaming around the "Potters and Orchid Railway" to be my confirmation of my path. I am most happy to share all. I will add, drawing the part in CAD is good, but it still can be a very accurate mistake. The assembly of the parts to have the complete 3D model is the real magic, that is bonus before making parts, tick off before metal is cut. I am also awaiting the new sub miniature boiler code to arrive (I am told it is at the printers) to study and confirm the coal fired boiler drawings. (I think I am adding a super heater tube and RC controlled fire door, a tender with a Slomo mech due to the water pump.....................................
The book is a great motivator and can get you started. It grabbed me at a UK heritage railway book shelf in 2015.

[bambuko]

Just to take an arbitrary example from your list of discovered errors:
page 37 in the book showing 82mm - accepted as an error and listed as such in the erratum I have mentioned.
In the tradition of model engineering publications it will never get corrected and will carry on catching unwary
I have latest re-print of the book by Camden and of course nothing got corrected.
But this is nothing new... - model engineering forums are full of these kind of "list of errors" for all designs.
There is only one way, and you are doing it the right way (checking it on 3D CAD).

...the radius rod length does not match the link radius, that is not mentioned in the 16mm file..........etc. Am I right ?

Yes, it is mentioned at quite some length (and again accepted as an error).

Don't get me started on the standard of engineering drawings
I hate the lack of dimensioned GA drawings - the concept seems non existing in model engineering circles...
Usually the designs consist of lot of component drawings with incomplete dimensions with no clue how they go together
Few valve gear designs appear to be correct either (if you read Don Ashton).
Still it doesn't stop us from having fun

I have the code from Oz - didn't know that new one was due... let me know please how different it is (mine is "Issue 1.0 - 2006")

ps totally agree with superheater and slo-mo (and of course RC)

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

Reply in red

Just to take an arbitrary example from your list of discovered errors:
page 37 in the book showing 82mm - accepted as an error and listed as such in the erratum I have mentioned.
In the tradition of model engineering publications it will never get corrected and will carry on catching unwary
I can see how this occurs as the author of many ME drawings has no commercial motivation to sort/update the master set of drawings. Many times the designer is no longer with us and or concern that has the rights to the drawings does not have time or need to update and they earn a very small amount of coin and there may be a lack the skills to do so, and then many mistakes are the builder's mistakes and then many drawings are privately copied and distributed. So I understand it is impossible to control.
I have latest re-print of the book by Camden and of course nothing got corrected.
But this is nothing new... - model engineering forums are full of these kind of "list of errors" for all designs.
Agreed
There is only one way, and you are doing it the right way (checking it on 3D CAD).
For me it is teaching me a lot, the study of valve gear, it was all good fun

...the radius rod length does not match the link radius, that is not mentioned in the 16mm file..........etc. Am I right ?

Yes, it is mentioned at quite some length (and again accepted as an error).
I discovered the 16mm file after I was well into redrawing the loco
Don't get me started on the standard of engineering drawings
I hate the lack of dimensioned GA drawings - the concept seems non existing in model engineering circles...
Hear Hear! and in the instance of the valve gear one can check where the drift in construction may have occurred and or hold tolerances
Usually the designs consist of lot of component drawings with incomplete dimensions with no clue how they go together
Few valve gear designs appear to be correct either (if you read Don Ashton).
Still it doesn't stop us from having fun
Yes, and in the scheme of life, these are all very insignificant things, just get on with it .

I have the code from Oz - didn't know that new one was due... let me know please how different it is (mine is "Issue 1.0 - 2006")

ps totally agree with superheater and slo-mo (and of course RC)

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

While the English struggled with the new ball and survived at the Wakka I made the slide bar support. I have deviated from B.Wilson's drawings with my redesign as I have added a separate slide bar rather than a bent up piece of the motion bracket. The only reason I am doing this is just for my aesthetic tastes. I intend to braze the support to the motion bracket then trim and mill and drill. I have some gauge plate to cut and polish for the slide bar.



It started as 1/4" round and I turned the 1.50mm pip and then to the mill. It will be trimmed to length after brazing.

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

The motion bracket as I drew it.


The slide bar support is brazed on with Harris 56T. Then the file and 600 grit.



I also grazed the surface of the support post brazing with the MB set up in the mill is ensure the slide bar sits true.



Just have to round off three corners and they are done.



While listening to Smithy and Marsh bat forever I got the cladding screw holes taped 12 BA. Did not drop and break one this time.

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

Another problem with the drawings concerns the motion bracket mounting angle, 8 BA screw heads ( mount to frame) fouling with the the rivets, unless the rivets are countersunk, which is what I am going to do. There is no mention of this in the text and the drawings show a straight through hole with no countersink. I missed this on my redraw, there is plenty of room to sort this but alas too late for me. I am rather annoyed at myself for missing this. The CAD drawings show what seems to be just the rivet shank on end of the rivet which is convenient to make fit, but in reality cannot work. I suspect more and more the CAD drawings were done by hired help rather than by the designer.

Valve Rod and cross head brazed and cleaned up.

[daan]

If you have the CAD drawings as a file, you could try if it can be viewed in 3d. That way you can spot these kind of mishaps before you build it. If you only have the plotted version, than that option is gone obviously.
Besides that, very nice and clean work. Looks really sharp!

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

If you have the CAD drawings as a file, you could try if it can be viewed in 3d. That way you can spot these kind of mishaps before you build it. If you only have the plotted version, than that option is gone obviously.
Besides that, very nice and clean work. Looks really sharp!

Daan, I do not have B.Wilson's CAD drawings on file, I have the printed 2D and 3D printed drawings fromhis book "Steam Trains in the Garden". Page one of this thread explains that I have created all my own 3D parts drawings myself and I have created the full assembly. But still one can make a mistake. The book is a marvellous inspiration and a good starter, it was heading in the right direction, however there are mistakes, most minor but numerous.
However as I make each part, I am consciously checking the printed machine floor 2D drawings that come off the 3D part. I up date the 3D files if required which updates the 2D drawings automatically. So at the end of the project, I hope to have a steam loco that works, and a full set of 2D drawings for each part and a full working 3D assembly of the loco that have been checked and prove the design. This also always me to correct problems and or mistakes at a later date. The problem with ME drawings is a long and troubled subject, which I will not speak about here. Some of it is just natural human error, a lot of the problems are just plain laziness with the editing and checking, and or a flawed process of design and build and update procedures, this is especially poignant when $ are exchanged commercially. I paid a lot of gold coin for drawings for a 5" gauge loco that one would expect you could make a loco from, but the reality the drawings come folded, on cheap paper you would find at the butchers shop and there was no way you could make each part, the tender drawings above the bogies was guess work. Plumbing, did not exist. So I redrew that loco in 3D and had to create 50% of the parts. I do have a harsh view on taking $ for lazy drawings. Not mistakes or such like, but laziness like Imperial dimensions being mixed up with metric that only defaults one decimal place. I am not a drafting expert, but............................

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

I ponder the process for the fitting of the steam chest and cover studding.
Cut down some 3/4" 10 BA screws to make the studding (the left over screw with head is saved , put away in the 10BA screw stash and can be used later for ? )



Silver steel, spot drill, jewelers saw, harden. (did not temper)



Trial of the idea
Burr after cutting

twirl between the fingers

Looks OK

I have not seen this before but I do not claim ownership

Made a stud nut and in they go after cleaning and a drop of Loctite 263 (which is the brew the Loctite tech help suggested)



One cylinder is done. Why studs and nuts, just a whim to follow prototypical practice. More work, but what the heck.



I am intending to do a final trim to height of the studding and do the twirl trick. I wanted to make a slight profile (profiled part tool process) to the end of the studds but that is hard to sort out before fitting and ensure all are within 0.10mm, to get that one and half thread turn showing about the nut when all is fitted. I am going to use Cyberbond SH55 flange sealant rather than gaskets in these small sizes.

[daan]

Absolutely great, the cylinder with the studs. Regarding the drawings, I've been technical drawer with autocad for about a year or two a long time ago and I must say that the work is exceptionally dull to do. It is very easy that some faults slip in, like using the former version of CAD drawings instead of the updated ones because the updated one is not filed the right way, or simply because after a few hours CAD it is more a way of sleepwalking..

I did like the oldfashioned ink/ chalk paper version a lot better, that is really artwork to do and because everything takes a lot of effort you really do focus a lot more on what you're doing. To me I really think it's a loss that a lot of this nice handwork is gone.

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

Absolutely great, the cylinder with the studs. Regarding the drawings, I've been technical drawer with autocad for about a year or two a long time ago and I must say that the work is exceptionally dull to do. It is very easy that some faults slip in, like using the former version of CAD drawings instead of the updated ones because the updated one is not filed the right way, or simply because after a few hours CAD it is more a way of sleepwalking..

I did like the oldfashioned ink/ chalk paper version a lot better, that is really artwork to do and because everything takes a lot of effort you really do focus a lot more on what you're doing. To me I really think it's a loss that a lot of this nice handwork is gone.

One must admire skilled manual draftsman, when you look at the general arrangement drawings of a loco, it is a joy to gaze upon. The years of toil and application to be in the front group in the drawing office........... respect!

[tom_tom_go]

That cylinder cover will look great once bolted on.

I don't like the look of the Rounhouse valve chest covers with the CSK screws. To hide them you have to use those flimsy brass covers they supply that never fit properly.

[Big Jim]

I did this when I rebuilt my Archangel Brick. The cylinder is well hidden between the frames so the aesthetics did not matter. It was found that the replacement gasket was not being compressed enough using screws to hold it all together due to the holes in the cylinder block not being deep enough. Studs and nuts solved the problem and allow tightening after running in.

[Hydrostatic Dazza]

The ones who make garden steamers for a living, Roundhouse and other companies "insert names here" and individuals who take commissions have to make compromises to details to ensure they can stay solvent, earn a quid and still have market availability. I am sure none of them are going to the BMW show room every second year and getting a new model. I ponder how much I would have to charge for a loco considering the time it takes and the investment in tooling. I do this just for my kicks and giggles, crikey, at this rate a loco would be $50,000 +.
Correct me if I am wrong, but no one can make a top end living making garden steamer, and many realise their aspirations through the efforts of others, hence sourcing from Asia. It all is just a ponder for me as I am a self employed maker and it is hard road to go down in my caper in this era