readingtype’s workbench

[readingtype]

Adam, thank you. It seems the most significant mistake was to think I should use the higher temperature solder. I will take note of that, and (hopefully sooner rather than later) clean things up and have another go.

Ben

 

[AJC]

Adam, thank you. It seems the most significant mistake was to think I should use the higher temperature solder. I will take note of that, and (hopefully sooner rather than later) clean things up and have another go.

Ben

No worries - sooner would be better, of course, I've put lots of things back in the box to stew because I'm irritated at myself for doing something that turned out to be daft. I think the current record holder is my Terrier which took about a decade owing to screwing up something of another. The actual work of correcting that? A couple of hours.

Adam

 

[spikey faz]

Far from a masterpiece but here are the wheels refitted. The thing zipped round the MRC test track earlier today staying firmly on the rails. The second and fourth axles have the least play so the loco tends to adopt a slightly tangential aspect on curves, but it stays on.

I think the reasoning I was struggling with earlier in the week about the back to back runs as follows. I have a 'finescale' 00 back to back gauge. I used it to set the axles before I had skimmed the wheels. This meant everything was extremely tight on the track, pretty much guaranteeing a derailment as flanges will start to climb the side of the rail almost as soon as they touch, and touching is likely with very little tyre width in between. Now the wheels are probably roughly up to the standard the gauge was made for, things will go better.

View attachment 164024

I wonder if you've tried limiting the sideplay on the first, third and fifth axles whilst leaving the second and fourth axles with more sideplay. This may help to guide the loco into curves. It may also stop the crosshead clouting the crankpins on the front wheels, although you've not mentioned any clearance problems here.

There was an article by Iain Rice in a magazine back in the 1980s (I think) where he was building a 2-8-0 locomotive. He had problems with it derailing, but solved it by limiting axle sideplay as above. It's one of those articles that's stuck in my mind for some reason!

Mike

 

[AJC]

There was an article by Iain Rice in a magazine back in the 1980s (I think) where he was building a 2-8-0 locomotive. He had problems with it derailing, but solved it by limiting axle sideplay as above. It's one of those articles that's stuck in my mind for some reason!

Mike

If it’s the piece I’m thinking about, it was a S&DJR 7F, for an EM system with some rather tight curves. Probably an early MRJ? If so, it’ll be this one in no. 23.

Issue 23

Model Railway Journal - fully searchable online index.

www.westernthunder.co.uk

Adam

 

[spikey faz]

If it’s the piece I’m thinking about, it was a S&DJR 7F, for an EM system with some rather tight curves. Probably an early MRJ? If so, it’ll be this one in no. 23.

Issue 23

Model Railway Journal - fully searchable online index.

www.westernthunder.co.uk

Adam

That's the one!

Mike

 

[simond]

limiting the sideplay on the first, third and fifth axles whilst leaving the second and fourth axles with more sideplay

I predict that this will not help - if you limit the sideplay on 1, 3 & 5, then sideplay on 2 & 4 is quite irrelevant - because you will have created a rather long 0-6-0! (assuming axle 3 has flanges)

limited sideplay on 1&3 works on a 2-8-0 as 2 will go one way, and 4 will go the other, and 1 needs to be snug between the slide bars anyway.

I would suggest (though I have not tried it) that the optimum on a 10 wheeler would be to constrain 1 & 4 and allow sideplay on 2, 3 & 5.

Of course, if it's a 9F, you have no flanges on 3 so it should probably be constrained to stop the wheel tread falling off the railhead.

Constraining 4 rather than 5 will share the offset between 2 & 5 and thus minimise the necessary throw on the other axles


hth
Simon

 

[readingtype]

I would suggest (though I have not tried it) that the optimum on a 10 wheeler would be to constrain 1 & 4 and allow sideplay on 2, 3 & 5.

I hope the time will come when I can try that. It's on the far side of conquering hornblock fitting, I think, unless I get diverted into an attempt to make the frames for the BR 94 before then.

In support of @simond 's suggestion I think, the earlier version (T 16) of the loco had the fourth axle as the driving axle and especially long piston rods and slidebars but as it happened that proved not to be a good idea[1] and the later, numerically greater series (T 16.1) had the drive on the centre axle.

[1] T 16 on Wikipedia (DE)

 

[readingtype]

No worries - sooner would be better, of course,

This evening's task was to remove all the hornblocks. One will need to be remade, then they can go back on with some less tenacious solder.