Rail Motor #1 drawing changes

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

I have been building a Don Young #1 Railmotor for some time now, unfortunately space limitations and a little Unimat lathe have very much restricted me to working on smaller items: lubricators, smoke box door handles, etc.

However, the recent purchase of a 10" Logan lathe, followed by a house move that will give me half a double garage, just as soon as I have the pile of boxes still stored there unpacked, means that these restrictions will no longer apply.

So in the meantime I have been accumulating the necessary material to make a start on the frames, which is when I noticed two handwritten amendments to the mainframe on sheet 1 of the drawings. Unfortunately these changes are more or less illegible.

1. The first change concerns the horizontal stretcher drawn just behind the cylinder. It is annotated with "Note 1", and underneath the frame drawing is the handwritten text: "NOTE 1 THIS …….. DRIVE SUGGESTS OMIT AS FRAMES …….. THIS STAY".
2. The second note relates to the cylinder mounting holes annotated with what appears to be a "P" just above the cylinder mounting holes, accompanied by the handwritten text above the frame: "P E …….. ….. …."

If anyone could shed some light on these changes, it would be appreciated,

Thanks,

Clive

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

There's a few threads on this model

**LINK**

**LINK**

The name varies as well…. I quote

I think the problem was all the articles were titled 'simple 040 locomotive' (In ME) rather than railmotor, I fell into the same trap many years ago……

Hope that helps a bit

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

I've sussed it for searches. You must look for Rail-Motor in the online index

The hyphen is an essential part of the search

computers… tsk tsk tsk

 

Edited By Ady1 on 10/07/2014 10:33:19

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Ady,

Thanks for the links to the threads and the online ME index, unfortunately it seems as if the drawing changes were made some time after the articles were published in ME.

I just noticed that Sheet 6 which details the oil pump drive linkage has a handwritten note: "See sheet 1 Note 1", which makes me wonder if the stretcher doesn't perhaps foul the oil pump drive?

Clive

 

Edited By clivel on 10/07/2014 22:59:00

[julian atkinsParticipant @julianatkins58923]

hi clive,

i am afraid i cant throw any light on the handwritten notes on your drawings. there are no such notes on the drawings supplied by don young himself. i do not recall any problems with either of the stretchers to which you refer.

however there is a problem with the vertical stretcher (that in due course the axlepump body is fixed to) at the front bottom corner of the frames which shares the same bolt holes as 3 of the cylinder bolts. you need to think about how you will tighten up these bolts as designed.

cheers,

julian

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Hi Julian,

Thanks for the response and the heads-up on the axle pump stretcher. Do you have any suggestions as to how best to handle the cylinder/stretcher bolts?

Over the weekend I popped into a local library which holds a collection of ME going back to 1928. I browsed through the Don Young articles published subsequent to the Railmotor series and found a comment in the "Elaine" series, 17 July 1970, page 694, where he writes in reference to Railmotor 1:

"Then my first drawing error came to light. The frame stay immediately behind the cylinders would have fouled the lubricator drive …… "

He then describes how he inverted the stay and slightly altered the lubricator drive. From the cryptic note on the Reeves drawings it would seem that they recommend leaving out the stay entirely. I did contact Reeves to see if they could shed some light regarding the notes on the drawings supplied by them, unfortunately I have yet to receive any sort of reply,

Thanks,

Clive

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Had another dig with "Rail Motor"

Found your drawing error in 3397

ME 3404 p1054 Which reminds
me of one of my recurring faults, specifying too
long guard irons. Those on my “ Isle of Wight ”
locomotive scraped the track, the same happened
with the K.1/1. The No. 1 Rail Motor was even
worse; I shall endeavour to correct this failing.
Happily it is one that can be easily recti¿ed!

There's a pic of the lubricator drive ME no 3405 p1106

Pic of the cyl ports being milled ME3408 p20

ME3433 p63 Don Y0ung’s N0. 1 Rail Motor seen on its first outing

ME3444 p642 The Rail Motor
performed on the ¿rst three occasions in a very
disappointing manner, tmtil it was discovered that
she had already written off her ¿rst superheater.
Whilst renewing the superheater, the blast arrange-
ment was slightly modi¿ed to increase the nozzle
diameter to 1/4 in. This has somewhat curtailed the
pyrotechnic display, as vividly described by D. E.
Lawrence in his M.E. Exhibition report.

ME 3446 has a pic of Don Young steaming his R-M Page746

ME 3478 P1060 The bottom straps project a considerable dis-
tance beyond the pony truck wheels, a feature
which was omitted from the General Arrange-
ment drawing. The reason for this omission
should be clear to builders who have tackled one
of my very early designs. Yours truly had a
failing of detailing guard irons too close to scale,
forgetting that the axleboxes had overscale travel.
Experience with my own No. l Rail Motor cured that failing

after replacing a-t least one sheared
off bolt after every run, the guard irons were
¿nally shortened to a sensible length, clear of the
railhead.

ME 3543 p800

A 5 in. GAUGE “RAIL-MOTOR”
by Anthony T. Vince

The design of the locomotive is basically very
good, but there are some design errors which would
prevent the assembly of the locomotive. For in-
stance the tender being double framed has spacers
between the two frames. The position shown on
the drawing would necessitate cutting a portion out
of the tender wheels in order to get the wheels in—~—
thisof course would stop them going round! There
are other errors of this nature and I would be
pleased to assist anyone completing a Rail Motor
if they would like to contact me.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

ME3525 p1139 In more
serious vein, Laurie Lawrence has told me how to
cure the blow down valve spindle problem on my
No. 1 Rail Motor; change the material from stain-
less steel to monel——thanks for the tip, Laurie.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

ME 4374 p403

Guildford MES Andrew Hook:
The Rail Motor Project. Contact
Brian Jones: 01483 531485.

[julian atkinsParticipant @julianatkins58923]

i started my own Railmotor at the age of 16, 31 years ago cycling to don's home at adgestone to collect the drawings and castings.

i decided on separate holes for the front corner frame stretcher separate from the cylinder bolt holes.

i dont recall any problems re the other vertical stretcher in front of the front axle, though to be honest it's a long time ago, and in any event i worked out a different drive arrangement for the mechanical lubricator from the axle pump. it is the only loco ive built fitted with a mechanical lubricator, all others having hydrostatic sight feed lubricators.

i recall re-arranging the smokebox innards so only one steam stand pipe which the mechanical lubricator to feed into before branching off underneath to the cylinders.

i had don's original Railmotor in my workshop for some time after his untimely death. it differed quite a bit from his drawings! i dont think that Adey's research through the archives is of much consequence to builders who follow the original drawings. i also had don's K1/1 in my workshop after his death.

don told me privately (as he did to all builders who bought drawings from him direct) not to open out the cylinders for the No.1 version above the size specified for No.2. hence my misgivings over the EMMA VICTORIA currently described in ME which advocates the same size cylinder castings but opened out to 1 3/16" bore, yet has a smaller boiler.

cheers,

julian

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

I am pleased to say that Reeves responded.

The first note should be: This stretcher fouls lubricator drive. Suggest omit as frames well stayed without this stay.

The second note should be: Easier to fit s/box if this dimension reduced to 1/4".

Ady, Thanks for the very useful references. I think that another visit to the library is called for.

Julian, Thanks for the valuable information, I recall you mentioning the size of the cylinder bore in another thread, as a result of which I had already made a note to this effect on my own copies of the drawings.

Thanks,
Clive

[Author]

Posts