Finescale - of a sort?!

[Peter Insole]

Last night I successfully managed to sort out the regulator friction - or rather the lack of - problem!

A very pleasant drive out in the afternoon sunshine with Rich to visit our local model shop and some other places for both "inspiration" and acquisition of materials, yielded amongst other things, this handy pack of various O rings...



I am afraid that I forgot to take any photo's of the simple process, so a description will have to suffice.

The stuffing box/packing gland has a plain brass tube and bore running through from front to flush with the back, and the whole assembly is fitted over four, fixed M3 studs. After removing the complete unit, it was a straightforward job to shave a rebate in the wooden backhead with a countersink bit - just enough to trap and slightly squeeze one of the appropriate size O rings onto the regulator rod when the box was screwed back down.



I have no idea how long those O rings will survive, whether in hard service or simply perishing naturally, but at least replacement should not be that much of a deal?

Whatever; for the time being the regulator needs a wee bit more deliberate effort than a mere feather light touch to open and close!

Now that job is finally sorted; it is back to Mr. T's special wagon wheels for today!

Pete.

 

[Tom Insole]

so in theory the next thing could be some thin brass plate as a gasket of sorts between wood and O-Ring. (if that's the case in this method?)

I am also rather surprised to hear that Owain made an outing without going out... See what I heard from this last post was you went with Richard, Thus my thinking a trip with the twins "Richard and O-Ring!" (you may need to say it aloud to get the reference.

And on such note....

Speak soon x

 

[Peter Insole]

As a postscript to the saga, big Rich and the small folks, Mr. E. and Miss L-R. swung by this afternoon on the homeward leg of the school run.

The opportunity was taken to "fire up" the engine and give it a test in the hands of some properly designated crew. Little Miss L-R elbowed her big brother off the footplate in time honoured fashion, but with a little encouragement, he did manage to get his turn in the end!

Both quickly mastered control with the new regulator arrangement, and all nodded their complete satisfaction with it.

Phew... What a relief!

Pete.

 

[Tom Insole]

One from today's inpromtu visit en-route home from the coast we did have a little railway action but this little beauty stayed firmly in the "fiddle yard" up at the booking office and workshop. I feel Scarlett would have thoroughly enjoyed chuffing back and forth Just as much as her driver today who took her to the beach to build sand castles and eat ice cream... Alas sat drinking the only outcome of a "steamed up" variety I looked to my left on the sofa and jokingly placed what I spotted on the footplate.

It got a rather perplexed glace from mum at first until I stated that there was always that joke that one day dad would forget due to the realism of the build and take a match and some of Wales finest black gold inside the beautifully crafted and rather combustible structure.

I will add that the content is not what is labelled upon the outside and I was swiftly reminded of the rather off scale size of the item in question.


For now a little hand test of the packing glands fitted to the regulator whilst nothing was "fired up" gave me the satisfaction that I'd had a go and thus felt the resistance it had given. Very pleased with the feel too.

I'm excited to see how it feels when the feedback is felt not only from the packing glad but also a little "motive power" that's produced by force made to this exquisite little regulator.

Tom.

 

[Peter Insole]

It has been quite a while since I posted on this thread, but I have been concentrating all my effort (health permitting) on building as much of the railway as possible while the summer season allows. Even though the line is still no more than a relatively short out and back affair, the little engine has been performing superbly and in the process taken a bit of a pounding! It has been lovely though, for whenever we have an occasional afternoon visitor or two on the railway, the message quickly gets out and crowds start to gather!

One thing that has astonished me is that while being aware that most youngsters have always had natural limits to their attention span, and that these days they are under increasing pressure from a myriad of attractive distractions, they will nonetheless happily play on the train for several hours - sometimes with little or no pause! Such intensive use this season was bound to raise some durability issues, and so that did not come as a such a surprise! I do understand some of the science of "neural pathways" in developing brains, It is still a bit frustrating that even after clearly demonstrating the benefits of gradually applying power - and they say "Oh, yes!" and appear to "get it" - they invariably revert to "slamming" the regulator fully open or shut on the very next, and at each subsequent trip! Such behaviour has to be accepted of course, despite knowing that it will place an awful lot of extra strain on a design which, with its simple plastic wheels and plain bearings is, lets face it, already a bit peculiar and risky?!

While that last point may not have been a direct cause, I noted with some concern that during the most recent operating session the engine had developed a distinct creak, lacked some puff, and was displaying a worrying wiggle at the back end when under way - particularly when running tender first! That evening, the loco was placed on the bench and the wheels and motion were given a close inspection. The rear, right hand driver had come loose!

Now, I have already used the words "surprise" and "astonished" in this text, so perhaps "incredulous" might be an appropriate description?

I had fully anticipated problems with (1) the rather undernourished plastic wheel centre bosses to the slim (8mm) steel leading axle, as well as the plastic main bearings from the original toy...
(2) the plain, plywood to metal crankpins at the front, and large, plastic bearing surfaces at the rear end of the coupling rods...
and finally, (3) the potentially weak joints between the plastic rear drivers and the otherwise chunky, brass flange fittings on the 15mm diameter motored axle.

Careful examination revealed that the leading wheel bosses were still perfectly tight, with no apparent movement, while all the rod bearing surfaces amazingly showed only the slightest wear in one two very small "hot spots", but were otherwise in perfect fettle.



No issue there then?!

All the fixing screws in the flange (seen above round the centre boss) also remained tight and unmoved in the main drivers... but... the previously snug, push fit, large brass fitting had worn loose (chewing up the key) on the right side only!

I had hoped that taking the remedial action of adding a shim and replacing the split pin that secures the assembly might cure the problem?!

Nope!

The wheel itself might be solidly fixed on it's axle once again, but the winded performance, worrying wiggle and agonised moaning of the motion remain!

After much vexation, and during a second strip down, the culprit was eventually located! The leading right hand wheel, despite appearing to be firm, had actually slipped slightly on the axle. Not much, but just enough to put the quartering out! The sheer power of the motor and gearbox was obviously overcoming the resulting resistance and delivering massive kicks through the coupling rod back to the main driver at each revolution! No wonder there was a breakage. It was the actual point of weakness and failure that was completely unexpected I have to say!

With so much riding on it - or rather not at the moment! - something will have to be done...

and I have a cunning plan..!!

After consultation with, and approval of the "accounts department", a brand new axle, a brace of plummer blocks (plus a full set of six plain ball race bearings for the coupling and connecting rods), as well as various metal sleeves and "rigid flange fittings" are on order!



The first delightful items have just arrived - for just over three quid each - and post free too!

Remarkably, the prices (as above) are still very reasonable at the moment, so it is a case of grab it while you can! The hope is that the revised arrangements will not prove to be too complicated to fit, and at the same time cure the problem for good - or maybe in the medium term at the very least anyway?!

Pete.

 

[michael mott]

The beauty of it all is that you can fix it, and then the maintenance department will no doubt be looking for some replacements in a couple of generations time as they go into preservation mode on the "Insole railway"

Michael

 

[Peter Insole]

Ah yes indeed Michael!

I feel for the poor souls who might be desperately searching for that vital, but invisible screw that holds it all together - you know the one we forget to leave a note telling them about it!!

Pete.

 

[michael mott]

Having got up early today to watch the amazing proceedings on Television Made me feel glad that I am British. and then afterwards I have sat going back through this entire thread, smiling and chuckling occasionally which really helped to cheer me up.

And as an aside Pete I have decided to continue my model with the difference that I will now finish Dot as she was depicted in this picture

http://britbahn.wdfiles.com/local--files/horwich-works-railway/HWR_1899b.jpg


complete with the load and additional saddle tank. and not as she was restored and now in the museum in Wales. I will set it up as a diorama that way I can make the loco according to the drawings and not worry about making it a live steam loco but an accurate representation of the shapes and sizes of it and not worry about trying to hide out of scale live steam innards, albeit tolerating the substitution of materials that were used in the full size loco when finished the goal is to be as close to how the real loco looked during its working life.

This will be after the 4 wheel coach of course.

Michael

 

[Overseer]

Having got up early today to watch the amazing proceedings on Television Made me feel glad that I am British. and then afterwards I have sat going back through this entire thread, smiling and chuckling occasionally which really helped to cheer me up.

And as an aside Pete I have decided to continue my model with the difference that I will now finish Dot as she was depicted in this picture

http://britbahn.wdfiles.com/local--files/horwich-works-railway/HWR_1899b.jpg
View attachment 170907

complete with the load and additional saddle tank. and not as she was restored and now in the museum in Wales. I will set it up as a diorama that way I can make the loco according to the drawings and not worry about making it a live steam loco but an accurate representation of the shapes and sizes of it and not worry about trying to hide out of scale live steam innards, albeit tolerating the substitution of materials that were used in the full size loco when finished the goal is to be as close to how the real loco looked during its working life.

This will be after the 4 wheel coach of course.

Michael

Two Dots with common ancestry. Dot in the Narrow Gauge Museum was Beyer Peacock’s works shunter and never had a saddle tank. Dot at Horwich had a saddle tank, I need to check Mark Smithers book to confirm if it was built with one or not. I can’t remember where Dot at Horwich fitted into the build order. Beyer Peacock also built a similar 2’9” gauge version called Tom Thumb for a copper mine in South Australia which was converted to 3’6” gauge and ended up at Forrest in Victoria.

 

[Peter Insole]

Thank you Michael for your kind complements. I am very glad this thread has been an inspiration for you!

Your model will be a delight I'm sure, whichever way you choose to complete it. I do agree that it would indeed be quite a task to "shrink down" live steam fittings for this particular locomotive, but then again, I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Chris Tolhurst (of TME) and witnessed first-hand the "almost impossible" being achieved in 16mm scale and Guage One!

I had a little chuckle when reading your post, noting that you too (amongst many) have been caught out by a 135-year-old deception!

Dot, Robin and Wren were designed specifically for the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, but apparently by agreement with the LYR, Beyer Peacock did not deliver Dot straight away, but instead they prinked and embellished her especially for display at the 1887 Jubilee Exhibition in Manchester. The loco was likely returned to LYR specification before later dispatch to its original customer. An exact copy of the engine displayed at the exhibition was then built, including the name, that could be freely demonstrated working for potential customers back at Gorton. No-one was interested in the end, but the solitary engine, with its handsome livery and splendid copper chimney cap, was obviously found to be very useful in the Beyer Peacock Works, and while it subsequently received one or two modifications along the way, it essentially remained as built, having a long career before being retired and proudly put on display by the company. This is the little green "Dot" at Tywyn, while her much modified namesake was withdrawn and cut up by the LMS at Horwich sometime during the 1930's!

This sort of subterfuge it seems, was not so uncommon throughout our rich railway history?!

Being closely involved with the little beastie for over six years now, I have obviously become somewhat biased, but even so, I very much look forward to your own progress reports in due course!

Pete.

 

[michael mott]

That is interesting, I do note that reading Smithers There were three locos originally for the Horwich works Robin, and two others, Wasp, and Fly were built later at Horwich in 1891with an additional Two built Mouse and Midget, in 1899 and the last of the class in 1901 called Bee. If Smithers is correct and that Wasp and Fly were built at Horwich and were identical to the three Beyer peacock locomotives. Then one of the original three Dot was originally built without a saddle tank it would appear. I am working from the drawings from NRM bothe the one without the saddle tank and the one with it.

Michael

 

[Overseer]

That is interesting, I do note that reading Smithers There were three loco originally for the Horwich works Robin, Wasp, and Fly with an additional Two built Mouse and Midget, and the last of the class in 1899 called Bee. If smithers is correct there was no locomotive built for Horwich called Dot. Only the one Dot for the Beyer Peacock if that is the case then the photograph itself would either be a fake or the loco dot did at one time have a saddle tank even if only for a short time.

Michael

No, the three locos built for Horwich in 1887 were Dot (BP 2823), Robin (BP 2824) and Wren (BP 2825). Beyer Peacock's Dot was builders number 2817, not sure how the fits in with the exhibition story. The L&YR then built Wasp and Fly in 1891 at Horwich, followed by Mouse and Midget in 1899, and Bee in 1901. The last 3 were probably built with saddle tanks.

As I mentioned Tom Thumb, its builders number was 3057 of 1889, seen here on Henry's 3'6" gauge tramway near Forrest during 1911.


Sorry Peter for the thread hijack.

 

[Peter Insole]

Ah Mr. Overseer, I didn't know about "Tom Thumb" - Thank you, that is worth a look now!

Please, please beware of Mr. Smithers account though. He has made some very unfortunate (and rather too obvious) errors and omissions regarding the Horwich engines, in what is otherwise a superb bit of research.

Do not simply accept what one person has written - however sincere and conscientious, they may have been seriously misinformed by someone else?!

The Horwich locos appear to have been modified with saddle tanks on an ad-hoc basis - or presumably at major overhauls. The earliest known photograph showing "Fly" in "photographic grey" was identifiably taken in 1902.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is probably safe to assume that was the first to be so treated, and thus finished for that occasion.

Official general arrangement drawings are also deceptive - I have found evidence that Horwich saddle tanks came in two separate sizes - with differing rivet patterns - while "Wren" at the NRM has a unique, welded (and rather crudely at that!) tank, installed by BR in 1953, that is a different size yet again!

I have become confused on many occasions during this build, but also regret having to say that I have been misled too!

Pete.

 

[michael mott]

Thanks Overseer I had to reread Smithers and it is not clear, so thank you for the clarification. And I can see now the error I made originally. I do however think that the Dot with the stovepipe chimney BP 2823 was probably originally built without a saddle tank.

And yes apologies to you Pete.

 

[michael mott]

Pete what I do find really interesting is getting to the bottom of these "mysteries" And yes regarding the lovely models that have been made of this little loco especially the live steam ones really are the model engineers art in miniature. Incidentally i love the picture of you laying down to look underneath, I would have done exactly the same thing.

Michael

 

[Peter Insole]

Thanks again Overseer! That is a super shot - that certainly shows Tom Thumb's ancestry!

Beware my own ramblings too! It is more than likely that I have been just as much mislead too - and might even unwittingly be the author?!

It was getting rather late for me, and I was so bleary last night that I forgot to hit the "post" button before switching off the computer! Just now found and finally executed!

Pete.

 

[Crimson Rambler]

The attached are taken from Joe Lloyd's four-volume work - A List of the Locomotives Built by Beyer Peacock.





Crimson Rambler

 

[Peter Insole]

Thank you for those page copies Crimson Rambler. I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I have only just returned to the thread and noticed it was there! The situation with the original "Dot" is at last a lot clearer! It was a complete surprise to read that she spent time (up until 1950) at Disley. I had not heard of that line before, and a scan for any further detail has drawn a complete blank. I think the term "Garden model railway" as a description for anything much over 5 inch gauge is slightly odd - or at least quaint anyway, and is definitely confusing for research purposes?!

Joe Lloyd's account does however erroneously state that "Wasp" and "Fly" (of 1891) were built with saddle tanks, whereas a known, and published works photo of the former clearly prove otherwise! His reference to "Mr, Parnell's engine" is a curious statement, considering the rather more obvious influence of John Ramsbottom in the design - especially bearing in mind that gentleman's dual interests of at one time being a director of Beyer Peacock and also having a pivotal consultative role in the formation of Horwich Works - and presumably the purpose of the loco design in the first place?

All very interesting stuff!

Pete.

 

[Peter Insole]

Here is a little conundrum, and perhaps another rabbit hole to fall down...


(copyright image shown for illustrative purposes only)

The above appears to be the only surviving photograph showing just one small part of the railway section at the "Jubilee Exhibition" of 1887 - where "Dot" was also a feature, but is frustratingly out of sight! According to literature published at the time the primary purpose of the event was to compete with London, and showcase all the trades that were active in and around Manchester. Beyer Peacock would I dare say have enjoyed a prime spot?!

It took me a fair while to positively identify the locomotive, but I can now be sure (to be sure) that it is a Great Southern and Western Railway, class 52, 4-4-0, designed by John Aspinall. The first three letters of that company title could well be the ones showing on the sign hanging immediately above the engine in the top, right corner?

The mystery? What is a brand new locomotive of that class actually doing there, when according to every published account that I can find they were all built at Inchicore Works, Dublin?

The fact that Mr. Aspinall had only recently moved to the LYR at Bolton and been appointed Locomotive Superintendent there seems to be a bit of a tenuous link?!

Pete.

 

[Overseer]

Here is a little conundrum, and perhaps another rabbit hole to fall down...

View attachment 172661
(copyright image shown for illustrative purposes only)

The above appears to be the only surviving photograph showing just one small part of the railway section at the "Jubilee Exhibition" of 1887 - where "Dot" was also a feature, but is frustratingly out of sight! According to literature published at the time the primary purpose of the event was to compete with London, and showcase all the trades that were active in and around Manchester. Beyer Peacock would I dare say have enjoyed a prime spot?!

It took me a fair while to positively identify the locomotive, but I can now be sure (to be sure) that it is a Great Southern and Western Railway, class 52, 4-4-0, designed by John Aspinall. The first three letters of that company title could well be the ones showing on the sign hanging immediately above the engine in the top, right corner?

The mystery? What is a brand new locomotive of that class actually doing there, when according to every published account that I can find they were all built at Inchicore Works, Dublin?

The fact that Mr. Aspinall had only recently moved to the LYR at Bolton and been appointed Locomotive Superintendent there seems to be a bit of a tenuous link?!

Pete.

I think the photograph is of one of the Dublin exhibitions, maybe 1907. That would make sense of the loco. The telescope was probably made by Grubb in Dublin and the M.Byrne sign says bell founders Dublin.