Ian_C's workbench - P4 and S7 allsorts

Bradwell WD 2-8-0 - the valve gear - part 1

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
Bullet bitten, and all the valve gear components are made. Laid out roughly in order below....
WD 280 valve gear 1.jpg
Tiny components like these take a disproportionate amount of time. A couple of weekends work , plus plenty of odd hours after work to get this far.

There are a lot of tiny forked joints to fabricate from equally tiny etched parts. This is how I've approached the job...
forked joint 1.jpg
A spacer is made from something that won't solder and won't disintegrate at soldering temperatures. I used a scrap of copper clad sleeper, with the copper filed off, and the thickness filed down to the width of the forked joint. A hole is drilled near the end of the spacer for the alignment pin to pass through. All of the etched parts have the pivot holes drilled to the final size, 0.55mm in this case. The parts are assembled on a suitable alignment pin. I show a o.55mm brass lace pin in this shot, but I've found a steel drill bit of the correct diameter to be much more solder proof, particularly if it has a black coating. It's easy after soldering to clamp the drill bit in a pin vice and twist it out. The pinned assembly is either held in the end of the toolmaker's clamp device (as in photo), or laid on a soldering block where the pin can be inserted in a pre-drilled hole. Pay attention to making left hand and right hand versions of each part, although Dave Bradwell has designed the etched components in a 'handed' way , so it's easy to avoid that mistake. The whole joint is flooded with solder, which is cleaned up and sculpted later. Lots of fiddly work with files and scraps of wet & dry to finish all of the components. Of course that's only the start. The whole shebang now has to be fitted together and made to work with adequate articulation, and probably some very tight clearances. Don't hold your breath for part 2.
 

Scale7JB

Western Thunderer
At the risk of teaching one to suck eggs...

Chemical Black the parts that you don’t want solder to stick too, you’ll have it all done in a few hours.

Apologies if there is a slight sulphuric taste in the mouth, it wasn’t intentional if so..

JB.
 

Dave Holt

Western Thunderer
Very fiddly, yes, but the end result is far superior to the usual 4 mm etched valve gear and looks well worth while.
Keep up the good work.
Dave.
 
Bradwell WD 2-8-0 - crankpin knack, and victory in the War of Gibson's Wheel

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
Crankpins first. The clearance between the back of the crosshead assembly and the leading crankpin on the prototype was small, maybe half an inch. That's about 0.15mm at this scale, or, because of the perverse way the world works, nothing. Or minus nothing when my accumulated modelling errors are accounted for, plus more side play on the leading axle than is necessary. I didn't think about it earlier, and Mr Bradwell doesn't draw attention to the challenge. I'm thinking about it now though. I can reduce the height of the leading crankpins with some chicanery (probably next episode), but I certainly need to reduce the side play of the leading axle. Some of that side play is between the bearings and the horn guides, and there's not much I can do about that, but most of it is between the inside of the driving wheels and the face of the bearings. To address that it is necessary to take at least one wheel off the axle to add some washers. I contemplated this with a heavy heart, because I remember how much of a pain it was to get the original wheels to gauge, quartered and with an acceptably small wobble. In the non linear fashion of a Tarantino movie, we'll leave the crankpins here and flash back to an earlier time...

When I first joined E4um (Scalefour Society online forum back in the day), I joined in the middle of an energetic thread about the merits or otherwise of Gibson wheels. This was known as The War of Gibson's Wheel (after The War of Jenkins' Ear - look it up, WT broadens your horizons doesn't it?). The warring factions were divided over whether the unavoidable wobbliness of an assembled Gibson wheel set was inherent in the design and manufacture of the wheel, or was down to the ineptitude of the assembler. The body count was kept to a modest level by the moderators, but I don't think a conclusion was ever reached. I guess it's continued as a low intensity conflict ever since. Fast forward again to Saturday 1st May...

With The War of Gibson's Wheel in mind, I thought that before I took a wheel off the leading axle, I'd better try pressing an axle into a new wheel using the method described in an earlier post. That had worked really well on the tender wheels and I hoped it would work equally well on a 1/8" axle into a driving wheel. It didn't. The end of an axle was slightly radiused and polished to ease entry to the wheel, but as soon as the axle centered and started to press into the wheel it was apparent that the plane of the wheel wanted to be anything but perpendicular to the axle. Just by spinning the axle between my fingers made the wheel wobble shockingly. When I put the axle in a collet and measured the wheel tyre run out it was about 0.25mm radial (doesn't sound much but looks awful), and the axial wobble was...a lot... builders of my acquaintance work to the nearest half breeze block, so something of that order. How to proceed?

Straightforward engineering approach, but somewhat of an a*se at this scale. About 15,000 words worth of pictures coming up- and then a lot of words.
gibson wheel upgrade story.jpg
  1. A lump of something (an odd end of aluminium bar in this case) is held in a 3 jaw chuck in the lathe and a recess is made that is exactly the diameter of the driving wheels over the flange. It pays to measure all of the wheels you're planning to do, because chances are they'll all be slightly different. I measured ten P4 Gibson WD wheels of this type and they ranged from 18.95mm to 19.01 mm. Since I was only wanting to experiment with one pair I was able to choose two wheels exactly the same at 18.98mm. If I needed to do the lot I suppose I'd bore the recess to the smallest size first and then rebore it to accommodate the progressively larger wheels, finishing up with the largest. The depth of the recess was 1.5mm, which leaves 0.5mm of the tyre proud of the turning fixture to clamp the wheel. Of course now you have a means of holding the wheel tyre that is perfectly true to the axis of the lathe, you can't remove the fixture from the chuck without destroying the accuracy of the whole operation. This calls for some thinking ahead. You have to make any features for the wheel holding before the bar goes in the lathe. In this case I'd worked out exactly where to drill and tap M3 threaded holes to enable the head of an M3 cap screw to just pinch the edge of the tyre. It was easy enough to find the centre of the bar on the mill and make the holes in the right place. The bar won't centre perfectly in the chuck, but the holes don't have to be that accurate. There's a 5mm diameter hole drilled straight through to clear the drilling and boring tools used later.
  2. Another smaller recess is turned to clear both the crankpin boss when the wheel is held face to fixture, and the boss on the inside of the wheel when it is held back to fixture. In this case diameter 8mm x 1mm deep. If I was doing this again I'd calculate the depth of this recess carefully, for reasons that will become apparent around step 12 (don't skip ahead, you'll ruin the story).
  3. The first job is to hold the wheel face to fixture and machine off the moulded boss on the back. The cap screws don't need to be any tighter than snug. Hands go up at the front of the class and point out that if the tyre is not in the recess then the wheel can't be centred. True, but we don't care about concentricity at this point. Just centre the wheel by eye and it'll be good enough. We're working on the plastic insert now so we want cutting forces to be small. I use small tools with effectively no nose radius sharpened to an almost mirror finish on a diamond wheel. Light cuts and high speed get the job done without distressing the plastic centre. Just watch out for the tool contacting the whizzing and invisible cap screw heads. Already there are some clues to the root of our problem. The boss doesn't quite clean up to the back of the moulded wheel. It's flush on one side and still slightly proud on the other.. you might be able to see this if you zoom in on the photo. Not out by much, but I know from reading Colin Seymour's assembly notes on the wheels on the Alan Gibson Workshop website, the plastic centres are moulded separately and pressed into the steel tyres. That's an operation that has some margin for error, and I'm assuming that's why the plastic centres aren't quite in the same plane as the tyres. The axle hole is also moulded in and that therefore must be slightly off axis as well.
  4. Brutal stuff now. The wheel is turned round to locate the flange in the recess and reclamped. It's gratifying to see the tyre spinning perfectly with no run out. The axle hole is drilled out to diameter 4.0mm. Again, use a sharp drill and feed slowly. I have two sets of drills. One cheap set, all gold coated and shiny. Maybe from India or China and drilling approximately to size. They're used for rough drilling. And a set of genuine Presto HSS drills, that are kept for best. They cost more, but they're perfectly ground and very sharp when new, and for accurate work they're worth the money.
  5. The drilled hole is carefully opened out to diameter 4.5mm with a small carbide boring bar. Unlike a drill, which has some tendency to wander off centre and make holes slightly bigger than the drill, a boring bar cuts true to the spindle axis. At this point we're not too bothered about concentricity, but we need to size the hole accurately. The hole is opened out to be a slight press fit for the brass plugs described next.
  6. This is where I can claim some credit for thinking ahead. Doesn't happen very often. I'd made some brass plugs for the wheel centres before I made the turning fixture. The plugs are diameter 4.5mm to match the hole in the wheel, and they have a diameter 6.5mm x 0.5mm thick flange on the back. That flange replaces the moulded boss we scraped off back in step 3. They also provide some extra gluing area. Countersink the back of the hole very gently to ensure the flange sits against the back of the wheel. Remove the wheel from the fixture.
  7. Here you can see that the plug is proud of the front face of the wheel and the flange on the plug replaces the moulded boss. An virgin wheel is shown on the left for comparison. The parts were degreased with IPA and pressed together with Loctite high strength retainer. Titus the dog was walked while the retainer cured.
  8. Wheels back in the turning fixture, and the first job is to face off the brass plug flush to the crankpin boss. Actually I took a very shallow skim across the lot to level up. Bit of a funny tool set up to get in between the cap screw heads. It was easier to run the lathe in reverse and feed from back to centre. Again a very sharp tool and light cuts is best.
  9. Here's the facing op with motion blur for dramatic effect.
  10. That's the plug faced flush, and we're ready to bore the new axle hole.
  11. Tiny 0.5mm centre drill fed in gently.
  12. I started to make the axle hole with a new and very sharp 2.5mm drill. That found it's way through the plug without any drama. I had planned to open up the hole with a series of drills to around 3.0mm and bore to size, but this is the point where I discovered that the retainer hadn't fully cured. I'd wondered why the dog had wanted a longer walk. A 2.7mm drill started to push the brass plug back through the wheel. The wheel was removed and the plug cleaned up and re-fitted with low viscosity cyano. Rather than risk further movement of the plug, I elected to complete the work from this point by boring. Worth noting that If I'd faced the flange side of the plug to a known dimension , and calculated the depth of the small recess in the turning fixture accurately, I could have the back of the flange in contact with the fixture when I carried out the drilling and boring operation. Then it wouldn't be able to push through if the cutting forces were too high.
  13. That's the smallest boring bar that I possess. It's capable of starting in a hole of just 2.0mm diameter. The advantage of boring to size rather than drilling or reaming is that the cutting forces are tiny and don't risk dislodging the brass plug. I'm pretty sure a 1/8" reamer would have broken out the brass plug from the plastic wheel centre. Also the boring bar cuts true to the spindle axis and has no tendency to wander, unlike a drill. If the drill is a little off then mostly the reamer follows it. I used the shank of drills to gauge the size of the hole up to 3mm, there's no way you can accurately measure a hole of this size without some very expensive equipment. From 3mm to final size I used the axle to gauge the bore. Cuts were tiny towards the end, with only a trace of brass dust being removed. One nice thing with small, sharp tools like this is that the cutting forces are so small that there's almost nothing taken out of the bore on a spring pass. Patience, and creeping up on it with infinitesimal nudges of the cross slide, and eventually the axle can just be pushed in with a slight resistance and no discernible clearance.
  14. Both the wheels now have brass axle bushes dead to size and perfectly (well not really perfect, but to very close limits) concentric to the wheel tread (OK, actually concentric to the flange but it's turned in the same op as the tread, so practically the same). What's interesting is that the brass bush is clearly not central in the plastic wheel boss, which explains the radial run out measured on the original push fitted axle.
  15. The almost final product, with the wheels just slid onto the axle ends. I have to say I'm really pleased with the result. They roll across a flat surface with no discernible wobble or run out at all. They're every bit as good as your aristocratic Ultrascales, plus they cost less, you don't have to wait 6 months (or more), and there's a wider range to choose from. Finally The War of Gibson's Wheel has been won (by me at least). I'm sure this approach would also work on Slaters 7mm wheels.
Next it'll be front axle apart to measure up for side play and washers. It has to be easier to gauge and quarter the wheels when they're free to slide on the axle like this than when you're trying press them on, keep them straight and pay attention to the quartering at the same time.
 
Last edited:

Brian McKenzie

Western Thunderer
Hi Ian,

I do something similar, but to assist mounting wheels squarely on axles, use a matching taper fit applied to both components. The taper is barely at any sort of angle :), being set to alter the diameter of wheel bore by only about 1 thou over its short length. The lathe top slide is adjusted using a dial indicator traversed over a longer (calculated) length.
After boring wheels, with the tool positioned as per photo below, the same (matching) angle can be applied to axle ends by using the tool from the far side with the lathe running in reverse.

Ian: > I use small tools with effectively no nose radius sharpened to an almost mirror finish on a diamond wheel.

Yes, the use of a fine grained diamond wheel has really improved my turning, no end. I have a 100mm dia, 600 grit cup wheel permanently fitted to a dedicated grinder. I'm loath to take it off, as once running true it's best left that way. (Use it only to breath a final sharp edge onto tools.)

These wheels, and discs suitable for Dremel type tools, can be obtained at very reasonable cost from
thk.hk

Boring axle hole_2083a.jpg
Axles with end taper_2072a.jpg
 
The taper

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
Hi Ian,

I do something similar, but to assist mounting wheels squarely on axles, use a matching taper fit applied to both components. The taper is barely at any sort of angle :), being set to alter the diameter of wheel bore by only about 1 thou over its short length. The lathe top slide is adjusted using a dial indicator traversed over a longer (calculated) length.
After boring wheels, with the tool positioned as per photo below, the same (matching) angle can be applied to axle ends by using the tool from the far side with the lathe running in reverse.

Ian: > I use small tools with effectively no nose radius sharpened to an almost mirror finish on a diamond wheel.

Yes, the use of a fine grained diamond wheel has really improved my turning, no end. I have a 100mm dia, 600 grit cup wheel permanently fitted to a dedicated grinder. I'm loath to take it off, as once running true it's best left that way. (Use it only to breath a final sharp edge onto tools.)

These wheels, and discs suitable for Dremel type tools, can be obtained at very reasonable cost from
thk.hk

View attachment 142654
View attachment 142656

That's interesting. I can see the benefit of a taper on axle ends and wheel bores in order to get a zero clearance fit, and guaranteed alignment. But then the gauge of the wheels becomes a machining variable, and if the taper is shallow the gauge will be very sensitive to the amount of material removed. I'm not doubting that you can make it work, but I'd be interested to know how you measure and control the tapers to arrive at gauge.
 

Dave Holt

Western Thunderer
The original P4 wheels by Studiolith used such tapers (into a brass insert in the plastic wheel centre) and had the exact problem you describe, Ian. If the fit was too tight, pressing to gauge could actually burst the wheel centre.
A modelling colleague, who scratch built a beautiful Princes Royal and Crab, amongst others, used to ream the taper wheel inserts to parallel, leaving just the last few thou' at the outer end to give a nip on the axle, and substituted parallel axles to overcome the issue.
Dave.
 

JimG

Western Thunderer
That's interesting. I can see the benefit of a taper on axle ends and wheel bores in order to get a zero clearance fit, and guaranteed alignment. But then the gauge of the wheels becomes a machining variable, and if the taper is shallow the gauge will be very sensitive to the amount of material removed. I'm not doubting that you can make it work, but I'd be interested to know how you measure and control the tapers to arrive at gauge.

If I remember correctly, there was a commercial system of driving wheels which used the same arrangement with taper fits. I think I remember it might have been the Studiolith/Protofour range. I remember at the time thinking that the accuracy of taper machining would have been the major factor in setting to gauge.

Jim.
 

Brian McKenzie

Western Thunderer
Ian,
Rather than removing a wheel to add washers to an axle, could you split washers and spring them over the axle? While this might offend your engineering sensibilities - I suspect the thickness of washers required will be quite thin.

An initial test, say using several paper washers (0.004") might help establish what is required to keep that front axle in check.

Suggested washer material might include plastic sheet or rod, or one I have yet to try, punched from Teflon sheet or tape, as used for heat sealing plastic bags.

-Brian McK.
 

Brian McKenzie

Western Thunderer
That's interesting. I can see the benefit of a taper on axle ends and wheel bores in order to get a zero clearance fit, and guaranteed alignment. But then the gauge of the wheels becomes a machining variable, and if the taper is shallow the gauge will be very sensitive to the amount of material removed. I'm not doubting that you can make it work, but I'd be interested to know how you measure and control the tapers to arrive at gauge.

The taper used is ever so slight, it's little different to being a conventional press fit. The fit for the first wheel is based on sizing the tapered axle end so it just enters the wheel bore, without it falling out or tipping over. Later it will be pressed home fully.

The taper at the axle's other end is adjusted so that the wheel mounts to correct position, gauging etc without any squeezing or pressure applied. At final assembly, this joint is 'Loctited' - but importantly - done after lightly abrading a portion of the taper surface mid-length, to provide the minimal clearance gap that Loctite requires.

The rational behind this - the Loctite end remains permanent, but the pressfit end can be dis-assembled should a wheel need to be removed.

Didn't find a suitable photo - but this shows some wheelwork activity from last year - and the quartering tool in use after crankpins are fitted:
Wheelset assembly_1801a.jpg

Grinding axle centrifically.jpg

In practice, the wheel bore diameter doesn't have to be exact to any particular dimension. Any variation is taken up by adjusting the diameter of the taper at the axle end.

A quick and cheerful way of checking tapered bores is to sight how far a known parallel diameter can enter the bore. I use gauge pins for this, but drill shanks - as Ian is already doing - are suitable if the ends are still in tidy nick.
At first, use was made of purchased taper pin reamers
04-090-020 2/0 Size, .1137" Small End Diameter, .1462" Large End Diameter, Round Shank With Square End Shank Taper Pin Hand Reamer | 04-090-020 | Travers Tool Co., Inc. with taper of 1/4" per foot, but now prefer a shallower angle as presenting less faff.

Decades ago, I made good use of Hamblings splined end axles when carving up their moulded wheels (with brass tyres) for foreign prototypes, then moved on to cast brass centres (with steel, now stainless steel tyres).
 
Bradwell WD 2-8-0 - epic diversions, and crankpins again - wheel form tools

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
I was just about to complete the turning of a reduced height crankpin for the leading axle when...nothing. The smell of fireworks, and no lathe motor. Advice is to reduce the speed when parting off, but by turning the spindle by hand?

I always thought that motor had run on the hot side of OK. A blessing in the unheated workshop in winter maybe. Naturally there was nothing for it but to strip the lathe and extract the motor. And sure enough, when the motor was taken apart the insulation on one end of the stator coils was cooked. This was an unusual motor. Basically a single phase 0.55kW induction motor, B34 face mounted, of frame size 71, but with a reduced outside profile and of a Dahlander pole changing configuration (2 pole/4 poles). Fat chance of getting a spare one of those off the shelf. Didn't fancy ordering a replacement from Germany with a wait of weeks and about a billion Euros. I decided to reinvent the drive with a bog standard 3 phase motor and a variable frequency drive (a.k.a. an inverter drive). They're all standard industrial parts. Affordable and easy to obtain. Some of the motor body had to be machined down to match the original and some modification of the headstock casting was required to make enough clearance to fit the motor and get the electrical terminals in an accessible location. The opportunity was taken to add an E-stop and a potentiometer for variable speed control. The new motor has a thermistor planted in the body and that's connected to the VFD which is programmed to trip before the motor gets too hot. There's also an external fan controlled manually from the VFD enclosure that can be switched on if the motor warms up during low speed running. The variable speed has mostly eliminated the need to move drive belts between pulleys. All new technology to me, but it all worked out nicely in the end. The crankpin? I managed to lose that somewhere between workshop and workbench...

At that point a week's leave and some decent weather gave me the 'opportunity' to take on another project - running an electrical supply to the far end of the garden. 2 days work I thought. About 40 metres of cable underground, through damned hard subsoil through a retaining wall and under a couple of immovable obstacles. Took 5 days of hard labour in the end.

Eventually order was restored, and I made another pair of leading crankpins. I didn't like the design that relied on the small screw effectively self tapping into the plastic wheel centre. A 'mark 2' design was made that's slightly unorthodox but founded on better engineering principles.

laed crankpin bushes 1.jpg
It's a flanged steel bush that's inserted from the inside of the wheel. It has an external diameter that matches the coupling rod, and it's threaded M1 x 0.25. The rod is secured by a M1 x 0.25 cheese head screw ('get it tomorrow', thank you Amazon, by the way it's 15:09 and they still haven't turned up) , the head of which may have to be slightly reduced to sit in the rod counterbore and clear the back of the slidebars.

laed crankpin bushes 2.jpg
The crankpin hole in the wheel was drilled through 1.6mm and the crankpin pressed in with a bit of medium viscosity cyano for good measure. The back of the pin flange sits below the flange of the brass axle bush, so it should clear everything when the wheel rotates.

All of this messing about with wheels has rekindled the urge to make my own. I'm now the owner of a pair of HSS wheel form tools in P4 and S7 from Mark Wood Wheels. Brian, I do like the look of your wheels (posted above), and I might have to pick your brains a little as I work out how to make my own.

And I still haven't got a running chassis yet!
 
Stop press - leading crankpins clear crosshead!

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
The desired end result of all this faff has finally been achieved, the leading crankpins now clear the inside of the crossheads. Just.

frame shims.jpg
Even with careful (I thought) measuring I still ended up with more side play on the leading axle than was healthy. It was clear that the side play needed to be reduced to the workable minimum. I didn't fancy removing a wheel from the axle and adding washers, so I opted to shim the chassis to to move the axleboxes out towards the wheels. Some 0.12mm brass shim was sweated onto the chassis and filed back to the horn guide opening. After that it was a case of carefully rubbing it down evenly on each side of the chassis until a working clearance was just obtained. The shims must have ended up a little less than 0.1mm thick on each side.

lead crankpin 2.jpg
The height of the crankpin bushes was gradually reduced by filing until they just stood proud of the base of the counterbore in the coupling rod. The crankpin screw is a M1 x 0.25 cheesehead screw with the head turned down so that it is flush with the outer face of the coupling rod when screwed into the crankpin. There's no room for a washer of any thickness between the coupling rod and the wheel boss.

lead crankpin 1.jpg
That's what you end up with. A very low profile crankpin.

crankpin crosshead gap.jpg
And here's the clearance that results. There's a few molecules over 0.1mm between the back of the crosshead and the face of the crankpin screw and coupling rod with the wheel across to the maximum extent. It's about the same on the opposite side. Next time I take on a job like this in Scalefour I'd plan it out carefully beforehand, and maybe cheat and shift the cylinders outboard by 0.5mm or so.

Before I get to test the chassis under power I need to persuade it to negotiate a 3 ft radius curve. I need the tender to do likewise and interestingly the tender wheel base is nearly the same as the coupled wheelbase on the locomotive.
 
Bradwell WD 2-8-0 - getting round the bend

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
Motivation's been hard to come by recently. Thought I'd sit at the workbench today rather than contemplate sitting at it. And posting something here tends to create a sense of obligation to get on with things.

Picking up where I left off, the first thing was to temporarily fit the pony truck and carry out some running trials with temporary power on length of straight track.
drive test 7-21.jpg
It works OK. The quartering of the front drivers matches the others closely enough, with only a very slight opening out of the leading crankpin holes in the coupling rods necessary to obtain steady slow speed running. The tender springing is too heavy and causes the tender to sit higher than ideal, which in turn reduces the drawbar articulation and puts a slight angle into the driveshaft. That'll need to be corrected before moving on. There are no springs on the loco yet, it's just weighted here with a steel parallel to make it behave and provoke some traction. So far, so relatively encouraging.

Next was the 3 foot radius test on a section of P4 test track.
3 ft rad 1.jpg
3 ft rad 2.jpg
It does sit, all wheels correct, on the curve. There's still a tiny amount of side play left so hopefully it won't go solid and cause the leading flanges to climb the rail when under power. Mercifully there's good clearance around the pony truck wheels, just have to watch behind the front steps when the body's on. What's most noticeable is the throw over at rear end of the chassis, and the position of cab relative to tender. A new drawbar had to be made to provide adequate working clearance to the tender under these conditions. As noted in the previous post (was it really over a month ago?) the tender wheelbase also caused some problems, and the pinpoints were flattened slightly on number 2 and 3 axles to give them enough side play.

Next job will be to clear the accumulated clutter off the test track and clean it, arrange temporary pick ups from loco and tender, and see how it runs under its own power in close to normal operating conditions, including the 3 foot curve. If I was going to equip it with DCC and sound I'd be getting good value out of the flange squeal button.

COVID cases on the rise again, Richard Branson about to launch a first passenger service into 'space', England in the Euro 2020 final - strange times for sure.
 

Dave Holt

Western Thunderer
Wow, that front crank pin retainer sure is close to the cross-head. God help those of us who don't have your machining facilities or skills.
You must be rightly pleased to get a smooth running chassis with minimal adjustments. I'm not too surprised it goes round your 3 foot radius test rack as my existing P4 WD (DJH body on chassis using Gibson milled frame plates) would negotiate my 900 mm reverse curve track prior to close coupling the tender. Regarding ride heights, drive shaft angles, I wouldn't make any changes till you've got the loco chassis sitting on its springs and carrying the final body weight.
Watching progress with interest.
Dave.
 
Bradwell WD 2-8-0 - A problem, and time for a re-think

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
The test track was cleared and possession handed over to the Test & Development crew. The motor connections were temporarily made to tender and loco chassis, and trial running commenced. On the straight everything ran quite well. The problem arose on the curved section, not one that I'd anticipated, but not surprising in retrospect. Travelling in the forward direction, once the loco and tender were all on the 3 ft radius curve (no transition by the way, directly from straight to radius) the outside leading wheel of the tender almost always climbed over the rail and the tender derailed. After a lot of close observation I've concluded that this is down to the tender drive arrangement. The motor is a Mashima 1833, running quite slowly and driving a 30:1 (-ish, I think) gearbox. It so happens that when the loco and tender are both on the curve the resistance to travel is increased and the torque required of the motor increases. The torque reaction on the tender reduces the weight on the outside tender wheels and increases the weight on the inside wheels. Hence the tendency of the leading outside wheel to climb the rail. Adding weight to the tender only helped slightly. Once I'd got to a maximum sensible weight on the tender and still hadn't eliminated the derailing, there wasn't much point proceeding further along those lines. Lesson learned - a big motor and a limited reduction ratio may not be the best idea for this drive layout.

The 100% guaranteed way of avoiding the problem is to go back to a conventional motor in loco arrangement. Better to bite that bullet at this stage. Over the years I've accumulated a fair number of gearbox bits and bobs - Branchlines, Porter's Cap (remember them?), High Level, some odd MJT Portescap conversion etches. I even have an original Portescap RG4 that I may find a use for one day (I mean, it must fit something surely?). After much measuring and pondering none of these seemed to be a viable solution. The limited width inside the Bradwell chassis and the confines of the narrow firebox scuppered all those plans. I do have a selection of Ultrascale gears that I bought a long time ago for...well I don't know what for. They just seemed like something that might be useful one day. You can see where this is heading - design your own gearbox!

The relevant parts of the loco chassis and body were modelled in CAD, along with the family of Ultrascale gears. I figured I'd aim for about 60:1 reduction which would enable the use of a smaller motor. Here's how it worked out (no prizes for spotting the spelling mistake).
WD gearbox design 1.jpg
I'd considered driving the 3rd axle instead of the rear, but as the chassis seemed to run OK driven on the 4th axle, and it would need some chassis modifications to drive the 3rd, I decided to drive the 4th axle. The biggest constraint was the size of the motor and the fitting of the body over it. The width of the firebox at the bottom doesn't give you much choice of motors, and the way I'd made the front firebox former meant that it would be difficult to arrange for the motor to project forward into the boiler. After a lot of googling I found that High Level have a range of motors now, including some handy looking and affordable coreless types. I opted to go with the 1219 size since it just fits diagonally into the firebox and can be slightly offset from the loco centre line and still pass through the opening in the bottom of the firebox.

Here's the detail.
CAD explode 1 WT.jpg
It is just possible to get a 2 stage reduction final drive to fit between the spring supports inside the Bradwell chassis, but that requires the motor to be offset slightly, which is why a 12mm diameter motor was chosen. You'd think a 1219 motor was undercooked for a loco like this, but apparently the coreless type packs quite a punch for its size, and considering my layout constraints, the loco isn't likely to end up on a 40+brake coal drag. By numbers -
  1. Side plates are 1mm brass or N/S sheet. They're screwed to the motor mounting block so that the whole shebang can be dismantled for maintenance. Also this approach enables the intermediate gears to be fixed permanently to their shaft which simplifies things.
  2. The motor mounting block is machined from brass. The motor spigot and the motor fixing screws are not detailed on the High Level web page so they'll be decided once I have a motor to measure. In passing I note that High Level / Chris Gibbon is due to resume trading on 2nd August once he's unfurloughed himself, so I'll be first in the online ordering queue for a motor! You can see the slight offset of the motor in the block. The other design consideration here is that you need the worm gear out of the way to access the lower motor fixing screw. The Ultrascale worm looks like it'll pass through the motor spigot hole.
  3. 30:1 Ultrascale worm and gear set, the gear on a 2mm shaft.
  4. 21 tooth Ultrascale 100DP gear. 100DP seemed like a good idea back in the day, but the teeth are very small and you need to get the centre distances spot on. Plus they're more vulnerable to tight spots due to dirt on the gears. I'd choose a bigger tooth these days. I see Ultrascale also have a range of 0.4 module gears, which is about 63DP.
  5. 42 tooth Ultrascale 100DP gear with 1/8" bore onto 4th axle. Note that if you calculate gear centres for the 21t and 42t gears from the DP and the tooth count you'll end up with a 'tight' mesh. Better to add 0.1mm to the centre distance to give more tooth clearance and some working tolerance.
  6. The locking boss for the axle. I wouldn't need this if I had the type of Ultrascale gear with a boss! This will be turned from brass and soldered to the 42t gear . The cross hole is threaded M1.6 for a locking grubscrew.
  7. Spacer bar to control the distance between the far end of the side plates accurately. A length of 3mm brass rod faced and threaded for M1 x 0.25 screws. I'm gradually changing over from BA small threads to metric. It's possible to buy small metric screws of the type used in electronic assemblies (laptops, disk drives etc) very economically. I can buy a bag of 100 M1 x 0.25 x 8 screws for peanuts on Ebay, whereas 16 BA or 14BA screws are much more expensive. It's also easier to buy metric taps than small BA now, but they're not much cheaper! The side plates are fixed to the motor block by M1 x 0.25 screws as well.
  8. Phosphor bronze bush for the 2mm intermediate shaft. The bushes have the flange inside the side plate to save width. Since I'm turning my own bushes I can choose the flange width to control the lateral location of the gears. You can see the wider flange on the opposite bush.
  9. Phosphor bronze bush for the 4th axle, drilled and reamed to 1/8".
  10. Phosphor bronze bush for the 2mm intermediate shaft.
  11. Phosphor bronze bush for the axle.
  12. 2mm diameter intermediate shaft from 2mm silver steel. The gears will be loctited in position on this shaft.
  13. Small spacer washer turned from brass, to prevent side contact between the 42t gear and the worm gear when the 42t gear is aligned with the 21t gear.
Thirteen parts. There's no place for superstition in engineering, fingers crossed. Well that's the plan, next I have to make the darned thing.
 

Overseer

Western Thunderer
Not sure how the tender is suspended but it strikes me that a centre pivot on the front axle or two would stop the axle lifting from the torque. And if the drawbar has only a horizontal pivot it will stop the loco and tender twisting relative to each other. This was common practice back in the days of huge motors that would only fit in the tender.

Not as much fun as building a new gearbox though.
 

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
Not sure how the tender is suspended but it strikes me that a centre pivot on the front axle or two would stop the axle lifting from the torque. And if the drawbar has only a horizontal pivot it will stop the loco and tender twisting relative to each other. This was common practice back in the days of huge motors that would only fit in the tender.

Not as much fun as building a new gearbox though.

I take your point Mr Overseer. I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm not sure I'd want to have the drawbar provide rotational constraints between loc and tender though. And I don't really want to re-engineer the tender chassis at this stage Maybe if I was starting again...
 
Bradwell WD 2-8-0 - some gearbox parts and one workshop tips

Ian_C

Western Thunderer
One small design change was required before I headed off to the workshop. I asked Mr High Level to confirm the diameter of the motor spigot and the size of the fixing screws. Answer - diameter 5mm , and M1.4 screws. The original design had assumed a spigot diameter of about 4mm, and 5mm diameter spigot took the mounting hole right to the edge of the mounting block. The block was increased in width by 0.5mm, and the fixing screw holes were counterbored, along with complementary changes to other components. Still fits into the chassis and body though, but with a little less clearance. Should be OK.

Here are the parts for the gearbox, including the Gibson rear drivers bored and bushed and running true (see earlier post on how the sanitise your Gibsons).
parts 1.jpg

All routine machining, but at a small scale. A few workshop tips worth passing on for this kind of work...

When parting off really small things in the lathe they do have a habit of launching at a tangent and finding their parabolic way to either the lathe's chip tray or the workshop floor. Then you have to decide whether it's quicker and less frustrating to just make another part or to carry out a search. Parting off with an old paint brush in the works pretty much eliminates that. Usually the part just pops off and is caught in the oily bristles. Worst case, at least you know it's in the brush somewhere. This shows the work held in a 3 jaw chuck, and care his needed to avoid a fight between chuck and brush, but for small work I usually use an ER16 collet, and then there's also space to place a small plastic tray on the cross slide under the tool. The brush catches 99% of the parts though. The brush is just an old 1 inch paint brush that I use to clear chips and swarf. It's got a bit sticky and spread out over time, which makes is it ideal for this. For a sense of scale the parting tool is 0.8mm wide.
parting off brush.jpg

Tapping very small threads without breaking the (expensive) tap and keeping the tap aligned to the hole can be a challenge. If I've drilled the hole on the mill or the lathe, this is how I follow up with the tap.
M1 tapping.jpg
In this case it's a M1 x 0.25 tap into a 0.75mm hole. These are the holes in the sides of the motor mounting block. The tap is held in a pin vice. The top of the pin vice handle is held loosely in a collet in the mill spindle. The collet isn't tightened to the vice, just squeezed up to a loose fit.
There's no spring pressure on the tap like you'd get with traditional tap follower. Just the weight of the pin vice and whatever pressure you choose to exert with finger and thumb. As the tap advances into the work the spindle fine feed is adjusted to follow it down. This way you get a direct feel for how the tap is cutting. In the lathe, the pin vice is guided by a collet held in the tailstock, and the tailstock is wound out to follow the vice handle. It's helpful to turn a short section of plain diameter on the end of the pin chuck if it doesn't already have one.
 

J_F_S

Western Thunderer
I like the set-up, but personally, I would use a .8 or even .85mm drill - although I know .75 is "correct". There would be no noticeable fall-off in strength (given the depth) and a drop of thread lock would guard against loosening once the fitting up is complete. But the reduction in risk of the tap ending up part of the job would be worthwhile!!

Great thread!

Best wishes.
Howard
 
Top