Maisie lubricator

[ferroequinologistParticipant @ferroequinologist]

Good afternoon

I have a Maisie (3.5 inch) with a mechanical lubricator. Unfortunately whilst driving her she spits a lot and I mean a lot of oil through the chimney. She’s covered in black spots/smears after a run, the smokebox has got oily deposits all over and I am looking like I have black chicken pox. I could fit a deflector on the chimney, but it’s not pretty. The lubricator turns one notch per one revolution, so I have got no means of adjustments. I am running a 460 oil and I have on advice of a fellow club member used 860 as a trial. It is slightly better, but I am not sure if 860 will do all the time. Any Maisie owners here with a solution?

Thanks in advance.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Not a Maisie owner, but on general principles:

The ratchet wheel can move only one tooth per crank revolution, as its minimum, but the driving-link can usually be adjusted to step two or more teeth per swing, multiplying the pump rate.

Typically the adjustment is by moving the pivot for its driving-rod, to another of a few holes in a flat-strip form of pawl-driving arm. Or by moving a small clamp slightly resembling a tiny version of that on a DTI stand, if the arm is made of round rod. If so, and if the joint is at one end of the scale, move it to the other. The nearer the joint to the pawl the larger the swing so the more teeth movement per engine revolution.

I don’t know the specific lubricator and those comments apply to the more common type. Another pattern uses a spacer within the pump itself to adjust the volume pumped per stroke, but if you have the drawing that should clartify this point.

.

Changing the oil grade will make little or no difference. The pumping rate is set purely mechanically.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Nigel, he’s already on one click, so can’t reduce it that way. Chap in our club incorporated a bypass to his oil pump, same as on an axle driven water pump, but you need very good workmanship and very small ports to make sure it doesnt bypass all the oil.

 

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Longer lever and one way clutch perhaps

[Clive Brown 1Participant @clivebrown1]

The only real solution is to alter the lubricator. Either a smaller ram diameter or stroke is needed. A ratchet wheel with more teeth would help. Modifying the existing lubricator might be possible but probably unlikely. The “Jim Ewins” design is a good alternative. the delivery volume is easily altered.

[Paul LousickParticipant @paullousick59116]

I am unfamiliar with the lubricator on a Maisie but I have built a Foster type lubricator for my engine which has an adjustable output of oil.

The output guide for the piston can be screwed in and out to adjust the amount of oil that enters the fitting.

 

[ferroequinologistParticipant @ferroequinologist]

Hi all

thank you for your answers. It looks like I have to put either a different type lubricator in or put up with it and build a deflector. I was hoping I could sleeve the ram somehow.

@Paul, the Foster type lubricator looks very simple, I have to look into that, thank you.

Any Maisies out there running on either the Ewin or Foster type?

Thanks again

Kind regards Sandra

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Why cant you sleeve the ram? The ball valve at the bottom would want thinking about, if its got one, or is this an lbsc oscillating design.

With the Foster one you are reducing the effective stroke, but increasing the clearance volume. Potentially trapping a bubble of air, so no oil delivery. Manageable if you have the discipline to pump some oil through before applying back pressure

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

A displacement lubricator ? Noel.

[Paul LousickParticipant @paullousick59116]

I have never had a problem with my Foster lubricator trapping a bubble of air.  It has worked perfectly for almost 10 years now.

[Derek DroverParticipant @derekdrover32802]

This’ll be a standard LBSC type lubricator, I have the same on my 3.5″ Netta, and it suffered the same problem with over lubricating, so I sleeved the pump and made a smaller ram which really helped. This is the easiest solution.

My other engines have Ewins style lubricators as I find these alot simpler to make.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

On a more general aspect, there have been comments elsewhere, in ME, on the usual lubricators delivering more oil than really necessary. I think it was Doug Hewson who recently remarked our using more steam-oil running a five-inch gauge locomotive for an afternoon than his full-size prototype used for 100 miles!

At least it errs on the side of safety – a bunged-up chimney being far better than a bu, er, damaged cylinder.

I spotted a possible further clue at the Chickerell rally yesterday: the lubricator on a full-size traction seemed to have a significantly larger wheel with many more teeth in proportion, than a miniature one I examined in comparison.

The full-size one also seemed to have two locking pawls. It was not easy to see, being high above me, and my first thought was some arrangement giving two engine revolutions per tooth, but studying Meyrick-Jones (1) suggested I had misinterpreted a Manzel, or Manzel-like, lubricator. This uses a single locking pawl but on a manual lever rather than hand-wheel, for rotating the ratchet-wheel by hand.

The real specimen I examined, and the drawing in the book, show the wheel diameter a bit under half the height and width of the nearly-square lubricator tank, and with fairly fine teeth. Many model lubricators I have seen have comparatively smaller, and coarser-pitch, wheels.

The angle of swing of the driving-arm was typically adjustable from 10º (so one tooth per rev.) to 60º on the Trusty and Victor, to 70º on the Manzel, lubricators, according to the text. Their innards are bit more complicated than the miniature versions, but do not contain internal volume adjustments.

For those making a ratchet-wheel it’s worth noting that the tooth profile can be square or conventional gear pattern, with appropriately-shaped pawls. (A characteristic used on a shaper’s auto-feed drive, so the direction can be reversed.)

 

Perhaps Ferroequinologist has raised the question of “received wisdom”!

…

(1) [Meyrick-Jones, J.M., Steam Road Vehicles, orig. pub. Iliffe & Jones, London (probably c.1920).  Reprint: National Traction Engine Club, 1978.

The original date is not given but the appended facsimiles of the advertisements suggest that date. Some by styles of dress of characters, but particularly that for the “Leyland F2, After-The-War Model” steam-waggon [sic], accompanied rather oddly by a reference to the same builder’s petrol-engined vehicles. Yours for £750.]

[ferroequinologistParticipant @ferroequinologist]

Thank you ! I have not decided yet what to do. I’m amazed that no one has found a better solution for a small engine like that. Members in my club state that sleeving the pump and smaller ram could result in unreliability of oiling the loco .

I will let you know what I have decided.

 

Thanks all

Sandra

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Received wisdom concerning lubricators pretty much dates back to LBSC days.

His prime concern being something adequately technically reliable that could be built with careful workmanship, but not exceptional skill, using the affordable technology of the time. Ruler, calipers, scriber and no dials on the lathe put a certain limit on how many teeth can go on a ratchet wheel whilst still being well enough shaped for reliable drive. Similarly really small rams could be just too tricky. I suspect the problem was slightly alleviated back the by easily available oil characteristics. Whatever the viscosity modern oils seem to flow more readily than my memories of the good old stuff suggests.

Excess oil delivery seems to have been a “thing” pretty much forever and accepted as a consequence of reliable operation. As Nigel says black chickenpox syndrome and a reliable running loco being seen as a preferable alternative to seized solid and stopped on the most remote portion of the track.

Given the ready availability of O rings these days along with simplicity of construction and easy adjustment there seems no objective reason why the Ewings design shouldn’t be the de-facto choice when you”just want a lubricator”. Compared to full size a simple LBSC ratchet drive lubricator is hardly prototypical so it seems silly to accept performance limitations imposed by the need for (relatively) easy construction in a bygone era.

Generally LBSC was all about “a loco YOU can build and YOU can drive”. If magically transported to 2025 I suspect he would have been delighted with how modern, affordable, technology puts better building within the reach of the ordinary guy or gal in the shop. I suspect he’d also find folk taking every word, dot comma and slash of his earlier designs as holy writ more than a little silly.

Clive

[Author]

Posts