Lady Stephanie

[Steve HuckinsParticipant @stevehuckins53362]

Can anyone give me their thoughts and advice on the ‘Lady Stephanie’ engine advertised by ‘Reeves’ please ?

I am relatively new to model engineering but have completed a few Stuart engines as well as a PM research PM1

I like the look of the ‘Lady Stephanie’ engine a lot from the pictures but have heard some troubling reports about the quality of the drawings.  Also some issues with Reeves service.

The kit is just shy of £300 with the drawings so I am not going to go ahead and purchase one without some feedback from anybody who has built one.

Cheers

Steve

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

It would be quite a step from what you have made to lady S. being a small engine with a lot of detail many of the parts are quite small as are the fixings.

I would be tempted to see if you can pick up the old issues of EiM from ebay or similar to see what is involved and the build article will be a lot of help too.

These days with many of us having milling machines it may be better to cut some of the items from solid rather than use castings just picking the more difficult to make ones like the beam and flywheel.

If it were me I’d make from scratch at a larger size and pick a few details from some of the other coffer based six column engines images of which can be found on the net.

[John PurdyParticipant @johnpurdy78347]

Steve

The build series in EIM ran from Nov. ’81 to Jan ’83 Vol. 3 #6 -#12 and Vol. 4 #1- #8.

John

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Hi Steve, I built Lady Stephanie and concur with Jason. Some of the parts are very small and fidly but technically not too dificult to make. The only issue I had with Reeves was that there is not much excess material on the casting’s for finishing the machining. So you need to be carefull with your set ups. That said if you are carefull the casting’s can be machined to size. If you do decide to go ahead and make one and if you need the build article’s I can forward them to you. I did not have any problems with drawings as i used the drawings in the build articles.

P.S. If my avatar photo comes up it shows Lady S that a built.

Alan.

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Hi Alan and Steve,

Just made a start on my Lady Stephanie engine. I bought the castings many years ago – they do look a bit like rough shapeless lumps at present. To be honest most of the “castings” could have been made from stock.

I also have the build articles from EIM by Tubal Cain and I have already spotted an important discrepancy between the drawings and the articles, namely the dimensions from the centre of the engine to the centre of the cylinder and centre of engine to the crankshaft centre.

In the article this dimension is shown equally as 2 1/2″ either side of the engine centre line.

In the official Reeves drawings the dimension from the centre of the engine to the centre of the crankshaft is 2 1/2″, but the centre of engine to the centre of the cylinder is shown as 2 15/32″.

Its only 1/32″ but on an engine this small, it sounds significant. I think the official drawings are the correct dimensions.

Alan, did you find any other errors?

All the best

Derek

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Hi Derek, I never had the drawings. I took all of the dimensions from the build series and never had any issues. The only issue I had during the build was machining the Entablature due to very little excess material prior to maching. I was left with very little material for maching to size. Tomorrow I will go up the workshop and measure the position of the cylinder. I have attached a photo of Lady S I built. At this stage I had not finished the governor and a couple of other bits.

 

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Steve, apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Not checked my e mails for a few days. I have sent you a reply to your message. It includes a short video so let me know if you get it.

Alan.

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Thanks Alan,

Interesting that on the official drawing the corresponding dimension on the beam is 2 1/2″ either side of the engine centre line.

So I am confused now as to what effect this error has on the engine and why the error on the drawings?

Looking forward to finding out if it does make any difference to those that have made this engine!

Regards

Derek

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I suppose these days it can be drawn in CAD and the action of the piston rod observed to see if one dimension keeps it straighter than the other.

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

I suppose these days it can be drawn in CAD and the action of the piston rod observed to see if one dimension keeps it straighter than the other.

Hi Jason, that is true, it is probably the best way of determining the position and dimensions. I don’t have CAD though!

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

I have the drawings for the Vulcan and the ME Beam engine and have found this:-

On the Vulcan the centre dimensions on the beam to the centre line of cylinder and the crankshaft are the same as the bedplate.

On the ME Beam engine the centre dimensions on the beam to the centre line of cylinder and the crankshaft are the same, but the corresponding dimensions on the bedplate differ from that on the beam but both the centre dimensions (cylinder and crankshaft) on the bedplate are equal. Not a huge difference though.

Therefore it seems that only by “CADing” (is there such a word?) can these dimensions be “checked for optimum position.

My thinking is that it must be due to the geometry of the engine itself esp the parallel motion, but how critical is it?

Yet it does not answer the conflicting information on the build instructions and drawings on the Lady Stephanie engine.

Not cut any metal yet…..

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Well if you can work to 64ths you could split the difference😉

I did do the CAD for one of the popular beam engines and did get a bit less movement at the top of the piston rod but a quick search this morning did not find the thread and I don’t think I kept the CAD files. Don’t have either set of drawings for Steph

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Hi Derek, as promised I checked the dimension’s of the cylinder and can confirm that it’s 2 1/2″ from the centre line. Also I put the beam horizontal and at the cylinder end of the beam the cylinder piston rod is perfectly in line with the centre of the parallel motion linkages and beam locating hole.

Hope this makes sense and helps.

Alan.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

For anyone interested the topic is also on MEM forum. Seems quite a few model beam engines have the cylinder closer to the middle than the length of the beam Such as the Stuart and ME Beam

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

All practical parallel motion linkages produce a shallow S shaped curve. It can be worked out by trigonometry, but it gets tedious if you don’t do it on a computer. I’m guessing that this is optimised to get the appropriate joint on the cylinder centreline when ghf piston is fully down and the rod least flexible.

If youre not into maths, do as Jason says, draw out thf beam and correcting linkage with the piston fully down and measure the distance to the beam pivot

[Steve HuckinsParticipant @stevehuckins53362]

Thanks to everyone for the advice regarding Lady Stephanie so far.

I will be attempting to make her soon and am still keen for any and all advice regards dimensions, procedures and hints etc. from you all who have completed this model.  I will keep track and note anything of relevance in a build diary.

If this topic is getting too bloated perhaps any other post could be sent to me personally.  Either way, thanks again.

Regards

Steve

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Hi,

Great picture Alan, thanks for the information. I think Steve and I are on the same “journey”!

Just another question about the Lady Steph engine. I am great admirer of Tubal Cain (aka Tome Walshaw), but I cannot find anywhere in the drawings or his build instructions about how the base is held together.

As I see it there is a 6BA stud that is passed up through the 2.9 mm hole in the bottom plate, then up through the axially drilled pillar 3mm dia hole, through the 3mm dia in the top plate and then finally screwed into the bottom of each of the fluted pillars.

Now the question is what about the bottom of these studs?, obviously they protrude from the bottom plate and will need to be threaded and secured by 6BA nuts to clamp the whole assembly securely. However the whole engine will now sit on all 6 of these protruding nuts/studs – this doesn’t seem correct. I thought initially that the bottom plate will simply lay flat on a level surface, but not with these protrusions that secure the structure of the engine.

If this is correct then Tubal Cain makes no reference to this, and any builder will have to then make a “sub” base/plinth in order to hide the 6 nuts and provide a level surface for the engine to stand on.

Or have I missed some vital detail ?

Kind regards

Derek

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

As the flywheel protrudes below the bottom plate is is likely that the engine will be mounted on some form of base or plinth otherwise the flywheel will not turn and the engine will not sit flat on anything.

I would just put six holes in the plinth to clear the nuts.

Also think about how the engine will be held to a display base or plinth as there are no lugs on the base. If it were me I would make the studs even longer so that nuts in suitable counterbores in the underside of the display base can be use dto hold the engine to it.

An alternative would be to make a larger and thicker bottom plate that can be counterbored large enough on the underside so a socket can be got round the 6BA nuts. Then have some hold down lugs on the new larger base to mount the engine to your display board/plinth.

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

As the flywheel protrudes below the bottom plate is is likely that the engine will be mounted on some form of base or plinth otherwise the flywheel will not turn and the engine will not sit flat on anything.

I would just put six holes in the plinth to clear the nuts.

Also think about how the engine will be held to a display base or plinth as there are no lugs on the base. If it were me I would make the studs even longer so that nuts in suitable counterbores in the underside of the display base can be use dto hold the engine to it.

An alternative would be to make a larger and thicker bottom plate that can be counterbored large enough on the underside so a socket can be got round the 6BA nuts. Then have some hold down lugs on the new larger base to mount the engine to your display board/plinth.

Yep , all good points Jason. Thanks!

Never considered the flywheel protruding below the bottom plate makes it even odder that for all the detail that Tubal Cain has in his drawings, he neglected this detail.

All the best

Derek

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Hi Derek, I mounted mine on a wooden plinth as described by Jason. I’m going up to my workshop now and will take a couple of photo’s of the plinth and the underside. Will post them tonight.

Alan

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Cheers Alan!

Thanks very much

 

Derek

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Hi Derek, just come back from my workshop. I have attached some photo’s for you.

Also in the text of the buildn series regarding the cabinet base, there are 4 holes 5/32″. In the text it refers to these holes as:- “four 5/32″ holes for the holding down bolts”. If you look at the left hand pillar in my photo’s you can just make out the head of the hold doen bolt. I only used two of the holes.

Hope this helps.

 

Alan.

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Steve the reason you did not get the video was because the file was bounced back to me as too large for the forum. That’s why I wanted your e mail so i could resend it.

Alan.

[alan ord 2Participant @alanord2]

Derek, I forgot to mention that the flywheel is none standard. I happened to go into Aldi one day and they were selling small dumb bell weights cheap. £3 for 4 of them. So thought they could be machined into fly wheels, so I bought them. I have used 2 of them for fly wheels.

This is the second flywheel in question. I just need a project to use it on!!

Alan.

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Thanks Alan for going to all the trouble of checking your Lady Steph for me!

You have done a great job. I like the re-purposed flywheel!

 

Once again many thanks

Derek

[Author]

Posts