Falcor

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

TO PETER RUSSELL 4 … sorry for the delay in replying … we have just had a week boiling ourselves in the lake district … not usual weather for summer … far too hot to climb Helvellyn … most times we get rain … fig 8 in part 2 of Falcor quotes 16 swg for the boiler, this includes the 2 end plates, just as JASON B says … I use hard wood for the 2 formers needed … add 2 lots of plate thickness together, in this case .064+.064 = 0. 128 (check your sheet metal) … subtract this from the ID of the boiler tube … this gives you the diameter of the formers … if you try for a flange length of about 7/32 then add twice this to the size needed for the copper sheet … anneal it and keep on annealing it as the flange is slowly formed … to not harden the copper means that it will need to be re-annealed 4 or 5 times … when you have made the two hard wood formers the copper sheet can be sandwiched centrally between them and clamped in the vise … remember to make a small bevel on the corner of one piece of wood … bend the copper round this.

When finished the flange should have a reasonable length all the way round … if it is a bit off-centre then one part of the flange will probably have a kink or a fold in it … this part can be trimmed down in length … this should allow it to flatten … all my flanged plates are now filed instead of machined … quite deliberate as it allows the silver solder (sf 55) to flow through the joint and make a decent fillet on the inside edge.

I have always used PH. bronze with no problems … again JASON B has answered this question … thank you Jason … most of the square material I use has been filed down by hand from hex. or round stock … a file and a hacksaw is generally my version of a milling machine … I just keep an eye on the corners by using a small square … hope this is useful.

martin

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

The corrections Martin has made regarding the tab on the top of the frames. 25/05/2018 part 4 three errors

The magazine drawing ive got looks ok so what Martin is saying does not make sense ( sorry Martin its more than likely my brain!!!!)

Any advise appreciated

Regards

Pete

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

Malcom part five just recieved today – have the gremlins struck again?

Suspension bracket fig 32/33 there is no mention of the width of the brass strip forming the bracket.

Regards

Pete R

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

TO PETER RUSSELL 4 … the brass tab on top of the frames is 0.50 wide and 0.25 high … the height is correctly shown as 0.25 but the width has been omitted from the very top of the drawing … maybe I have made it worse ? I think I will have to study ALL the measurements shown to check it is all in its right place … as yet I am not sure it is your brain or mine that is having a senior moment ! will let you know, but it could be me ! … as regards the suspension bracket the thickness is 1/16 or 0. 0625 and width is 0.75 … it is ( or should be ) shown in figure 34 which is a side view … I am assuming this part of the drawing is not yet published … I have not yet seen the newest copy of ME, it should arrive in a couple of days … It is just unfortunate how the magazine has been published … you need all 3 drawings for it to make sense … one question … you typed Malcom part five … should it be Falcor ?

martin

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Martin, the correct 1/2" width for the tab is given, just to it's left, maybe just moved down to save column inches?

Fig 34 is published but just shows the front suspension bogie bush and net from 5/16 hex. Fig 33 gives the thickness but not the width of the bracket (upto fig 39 published in 4589)

 

PM Sent

Edited By JasonB on 19/06/2018 10:28:20

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

TO PETER RUSSELL 4 … I asked GOD to check the frames drawing ( fig 26 ) with me … SHE said it looks OK … she did say maybe it should have been marked REAR at the left and FRONT at the right to save any confusion … as regards fig 34 showing the suspension bracket, side view, it would appear from what JASON B has typed above that the numbers of the figures have changed slightly … I will know how it appears in a few days when I get my copy of the magazine … perhaps it is best if I do not comment on something I have not yet read yet … I used to get the magazine by subscription about 8 years ago, about the time when easy-flo 2 disappeared from the shops … at that time the magazine arrived on Wednesday or Thursday … I did not realise that there was such a difference in delivery times … hope this is some use.

martin

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

TO PETER RUSSEL 4 … I am now looking at my copy of M.E, part 5 of the loco series … a good job I waited till I had the magazine to look at … 7 of the figures have been re-numbered in the drawing office … 2 of the figures which show the axles and wheels for the front bogie are missing …with these I made the wheels loose on their axles … presumably they will show up in part 6 in a months time … on figure 33, page 13, the width of the suspension bracket is missing … it should be 0.75 inches as we said the other day … the drawing office people have put figures 32 and 33 next to each other … an error has crept in … one of the measurements marked as "outside edge of bend" started out as 1.40 and not 1.338 as drawn … hope it is all sorted( for the moment )

martin

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

can i respectfully suggest that the articale in ME 4591 page 152 on is read and provides useful information to the novice boiler maker as to how to deal with it this would also apply to the tank used for the gas cylinder.

If your not feeling brave enough to make flanged end plates for the boiler and gas tank talk to GLR Kennions who can supply ready fllanged ends.

Regards

Pete

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

Hi

Part 6 is now issued however there are areas that in my opinion need clarification.

Where did the boigi wheels come from.

In fig 42 the right hand sketch showing at U channel form need some extra explanation as to what it is.

in fig 34 there is clearly a inner ring but no explanation

Is this a commercial smoke box door ? if so where from

Fig 43 does not add up either so re examination may help

Regards

Pete

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

To Peter Russell … the bogie wheels come from a variety of suppliers … IP ENGINEERING … BRANDBRIGHT (now reopened ) …SWIFT SIXTEEN … ANYTHING NARROW GAUGE ( I think ) … ROUNDHOUSE and several more who all advertise in GARDEN RAIL magazine … figure 42 does contain an error … the front ring for the smokebox is shown as having a flange … it is not there on my original drawing … another drawing office gremlin I am afraid.

Do you mean photo 34 has an inner ring ?? if so, fig 42 just above photo 34 shows the piece of metal involved … it is just to the right of the smokebox front … what it looks like is shown in photo 34 inside the smoke box at the right … photo 35 shows the smokebox door, it can be as fancy as you like, or just a piece of 3mm brass cut to a circle with the edge trimmed down in thickness.

Fig 43 is immediately to the left of photo 36 … the figure at the bottom marked 0.4 matches up with the photo at its left … over to the right on the next page is figure 45 and photo 37 … this is the exhaust pipe adaptor which fits into the smokebox front support … figure 43 does show the 2 holes required for mounting the exhaust pipe adaptor … one of these is given as 0.312 facing rear.

Hope this helps … if not, let me know

martin

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

Martin picture 34 on the left hand end – the one that goes on the boiler tube looks like its counter bored or theres a piece of 2 in tube behind the smoke box front ring that makes it look like that.- hope this helps see what im trying to say.

In Fig 26 Main frames theres no dimensions for the radiused bottom left hand corner – the right hand one is also not dimensioned but there is sufficient surrounding dimensions to be able to work it out.

Back to fig 43 theres no dimensions for the brass sheet soft soldered underneath either for the plate size or holes.

Also there are no measurments for the position of the square upright and 3 holes are shown but only 2 on the saddle part below.

There are no measurments for the 7 ba clear holes or the positions of the 0.3 and 0.4 cut outs which don't look in the middle when viewing picture 36

Hope this expends on my comment fig 34 does not add up

How do you latch the smoke box door shut?

Regards

Pete

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

To Peter … if you look at figure 42 there is a bored out flange formed at the rear inside of the smokebox … this flange is 0.005 deep …it is on the drawing … its depth is 0.315, also shown on the drawing.

Figure 26, the frames … no, the radius is not a precision size, usually I make it with the rear of a half-round file rather than leave it a square corner.

In figure 43 the brass sheet, you mention is used as a spacer to match up with the suspension bracket … it is shown earlier as part of figure 32 and 33 … I think I put the width in as 0.75 back on 22 June as a reply to your earlier question from the 19th. of June

The position of the square upright is to match the centre of the smokebox length … I usually fasten mine temporarily with a dab of epoxy resin … then spot mark the holes to match from the front support … easiest way I can think of is to scribe round the square block and pick 2 hole positions to intersect the brass block 0.187 thick …if I put an exact dimension for this it would be very easy for the whole assembly, and hence the chimney, to be off-centre … the 3 holes you mention, one is a drain hole, this is on my original drawing but has not appeared in the magazine unfortunately … a drawing office gremlin I am afraid.

the 2 notches you mention may be useful later in the build to clear some of the screws … keep the idea in mind … everything is easily removable, so if you need them then file to suit.

To latch the smoke box door the simplest way I can think of is to find a strip of mild steel about 1.5 x 0.031 and 0.25 wide … bend one end up about 0.25 from one end … the strip can be screwed to the inside of the door and bent to make it wedge on one side of the front ring … if you use 2 x 10 BA bolts through the front plate these can be filed flat on the outside.

martin

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

Martin – Gremlins again?

Fig 26 Main Frames on the top edge there is a hole 5.1 from left hand side which i assume is 0.108 dia and 0.125 down from the top edge of the frame like the next one at 7.480

Regards

Pete

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

To Peter Russell please … Hi Pete … yes, you are correct … 0.108 dia … the magazine drawing is slightly different from mine … someone in the drawing office has moved the arrows to the right and added a horizontal line to make it appear as if the 0.125 only applies to the hole at 7.480 from the left.

hope this helps … martin

[John RuddParticipant @johnrudd16576]

 

For two pages this thread has run with errors!

Surely there must be some form of proof reading prior to publication of the author's material!

How can the paying public be expected to build something from a magazine article over a series ?

What is the point in submitting an article if the information provided cant be printed accurately?

Rant over!

Edited By John Rudd on 04/08/2018 22:21:04

Edited By John Rudd on 04/08/2018 22:22:37

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

John

My thoughts exactly!

Martin is helping us enjoy our hobby and all the errors which are not his fault are leaving a bad taste.

It would be so nice to have a project that was right in all aspects and you could lock yourself in the shed and come out feeling satisfied instead of having to stop and ask a question or guess and hope its right.

I hear all that is said about the magazine production limitations in previous posts but this is basic drawing errors.

My Rant over

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I'd be interested to see what was submitted before blaming the mag. Having helped Diane out on a number of occasions trying to decipher fag packet sketches I know what is sometimes sent in.

[John RuddParticipant @johnrudd16576]

Jason,

Martin has already stated that there are differences between what he submitted and what appeared in the magazine….Is there a further step in the process whereby the errors/omissions can occur?

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by John Rudd on 05/08/2018 09:38:13:..

…

Is there a further step in the process whereby the errors/omissions can occur?

Several that I can think of. An article on the magazine's production methods would reveal many ways errors can creep in. There's a complicated maze between the author and his fans queuing in W H Smith!

Apart from human mistakes, minor software incompatibility is occasionally bothersome, like the recent example where dimensions on a drawing were printed so small no-one could read them. Very unlikely to be a human blunder – it should have 'just worked'.

The software used to produce the magazine has limitations that force the occasional risky bodge. Most obviously it's unable to typeset mathematical formula. Nothing new – old ME issues struggled with maths as well.

Dave

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

To Jason B please … oh dear! oh dear ! my original drawing were sent to Diane and a second set were sent to Martin Evans a bit later on … I still have my original drawings which were photo-copied and sent in to the magazine … over the series I have corrected a few of my errors, but the majority have been caused in the drawing office. As an example … in issue 4591, page 158 figure 42 shows the smoke box assembly … at the front end is a ring to hang the door on … my drawing shows a dotted line from top to bottom … the drawing office has changed this to be a double solid line … this has caused some confusion and has been described as a channel section … rather difficult to machine I would imagine ! … the editor has that drawing as a paper copy and also as a CD if it is necessary to check.

I know I am old-fashioned with my methods but I do not have access to any computerised equipment to produce 100% accurate drawings … if we get to the stage where this is the only method the magazine staff can accept then I should go and hide in a cave along with a few other rejects … this would leave the magazine free to only receive contributions from people who are totally 100% infallible and possess the latest methods of production … that would be wonderful, but I am not sure if that would leave very many subscribers to the magazine … I know I am not perfect because God says so … but I wonder how many people live in that perfect world?

I wonder why we are having this discussion at this exact moment ? in issue 4592 on page 250 is the "postbag" column with a heading letter from someone in Tasmania … he is also complaining about drawing quality … it is a very long letter ! … I sent an e-mail to the editor on Friday 3rd. of August as a reply to his letter … this will be published, I hope, in a few weeks or a few months in a future "postbag" … it would be very relevant to this discussion … maybe if this string of correspondence is of enough interest it could be published here ? .. if I am not worthy then I shall head for the knitting needles and sell the lathe.

martin

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Martin, I was not having a go at your drawings which I have not seen but making a point that some of what gets sent in can be quite difficult to work out what the author is trying to show.

Also by the time the drawings have been copied a few times, converted to pdf etc what may have been a dotted line on the original hand drawing may look more like a dirty solid one by the time it gets to the person doing the artwork.

I don't think the form the work is submitted in makes much difference as things can be drawn wrong in cad just as well as with pencil and paper. had this the other day where someone posted a drawing and took quite a bit of convincing that the dimension lines did not actually point to the feature they were supposed to so the part could not be made.

 

J

PS I hope the drawing projection thread won't get dragged up again following that letter in teh latest issue

Edited By JasonB on 05/08/2018 12:03:11

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by martin ranson 2 on 05/08/2018 11:09:57:

 

 

… if I am not worthy then I shall head for the knitting needles and sell the lathe.

martin

 

Don't do that Martin! I'm reading your work with interest even though I'm unlikely to build a Falcor. I'm more curious about how you did it, rather than the detailed plans.

When building from plans, I rarely trust them or my interpretation entirely. I don't have the training or background needed to speed read an industry correct 2D plan, so for me understanding any plan is about eliminating ambiguities.

Typically, I redraw parts as a way of understanding them. Quite often no more than scribbles on the back of an envelope but if needs must, I'll get more formal, escalating through drawing board to QCAD (2D), FreeCAD (3D), or Fusion360 as suits the problem. An accidental benefit of redrawing is that it often exposes mistakes and omissions in the original, and also suggests ways of making it.

One thing that stands out from Tony Reeve's letter is the number times assumptions about plans have led to disaster. Isn't it just a tiny bit surprising that engineering professionals jump to conclusions about the type of projection used? Did they miss that part of the training? Assuming European Plans are all First Angle, oh dear, there have always been exceptions!

One way of tackling the problem is to standardise drawings and produce them with highly disciplined methods, the other way is double-check. Much to be said in favour of both methods, and I suspect the second is more suitable for amateurs.

I'd guess drawing quality is likely to improve as more of us get into 3D CAD. With CAD you define the object, and the drawing is generated from it, not the other way round. The package unburdens the designer from error prone drawing methods, making mistakes less likely. True I find generated drawings impersonal compared with human efforts, but machines follow the rules.

Keep up the good work.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 05/08/2018 13:45:36

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Amusing three page read, especially when so many have complained in the past about mistakes on the old ME archive classic loco's and the inability of "Someone" to correct the drawings. The old adage "There's many a slip 'tween cup and lip" is highlighted here.

In publishing, there's a BIG difference between what was classed as a draughtsman and the now AutoCAD driver.

Regards Ian

[Peter Russell 4Participant @peterrussell4]

Martin

Fig 22 refers to a thread 4.5 x 0.5 which I presume is metric – is this correct as I can only find taps and dies for 4 mm x 0.5

Fig 45 shows a 0.250 diameter hole of set with a 0.125 pipe in it – is this right?

Regards

Pete

[martin ranson 2Participant @martinranson2]

Hi Pete … the metric tap is available from GLR KENNIONS LTD … the tap is made by APEX … my catalogue is dated January 2018, and the metric taps are on page 26 … I have tried a tapping drill of 3.9 mm and also one of 4.0 mm … both seem to work OK.

The hole you are talking about which is shown as 0.250 dia … my original drawing shows it correctly as 0.125 dia !!

hope this is useful … martin

[Author]

Posts