8Likes
July 24th, 2013, 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by jocular
I'll be glad to do just that, if anyone else will listen! jocular
Offer accepted.
Joculars Steam Engine thread, where the mechanical, engineering and construction particulars of Steam can be discussed.
Wow
Awww, just another of my imponderable interests! jocular
Awww, just another of my imponderable interests! jocular
Here's a few more pics, if interested. 8 years invested. A project dreamed of all my life, realized finally in old age! jocular
Jocular, did you machine all the locomotive parts or did you have to hire out? Where did you get design prints and specs? Does your engine model a specific loco from history?
I got my first metal-turning lathe at 12, my Dad, a skilled Tool & Die Maker, reluctantly coaching me on using it. He wanted a son to be better than a common skilled tradesman. At 14, my Mother raided the food savings over-flow money, and I got Sears largest, a 12" swing lathe, which I have to this day; it produced almost all the needed round parts on the locomotive. As an aside, I have over the years made innumerable special parts needed for race cars, and my endless list of hobby pursuits. While still living in Phoenix, and gainfully employed, I bought a nice used Bridgeport Vertical Milling Machine, which of course had a 3-phase drive motor, and had to be converted to single phase (no problem). Here it can be seen making a drive wheel, 9-1/4" diameter "Box-Pok" design.
I had at age 17, a senior in high school, taken a steam excursion trip, Sep. 1959, on the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy R.R., which ran through the middle of my hometown in Illinois. That memorable trip became imprinted in my mind, and I vowed to someday build a live steam replica in scale model of the R.R.'s 05-A Northern Locomotive, No. 5632, which saved the day on that trip.
http://railroadglorydays.com/cbq/
Much serious thought and deliberation went into beginning the building project. By 2002 we had been living in rural Missouri since 1999, all my equipment having been hauled there from Phoenix. I absolutely had to have a shop:
Built of rock gathered from the streambed of the creek crossing our property. I had no working drawings, but used a line-drawing from the book "Steam Locomotives of the Burlington Route":
From the basic dimensions on it, I transposed and calculated sizes of every part which would be needed, but totally lacked details of the design of the Baker Valve Gear, for example. Thus, I dragged out my old T-Square and on a piece of smooth plywood propped up on books on a desk, set about designing valve gear, cylinder block, wheels, chassis, boiler, cab, drive gear, axle boxes, front & rear trucks, and cosmetics. Not one single casting was used in the entire engine. Extensive use of aluminum alloy was done to maximize cutting tool life. Every moving part is supported on ball bearings: main axles, truck axles, all valve gear moving parts, main and side rods, even the crossheads. I used Briggs & Stratton engine piston rings, rather than make my own, 3.000" diameter. However, the valves, being piston type design, required 1-1/2" rings, which I made. Stroke was 3-1/2". Given the bore diameter, and a steam pressure of about 100 psi, I knew the main rods would "see" about a thousand pounds of thrust force alternating back and forth; they were machined into I-beam cross section and fitted with ball bearings at the large end, and spherical bearings at the small, in the crosshead. Here's a main rod being machined in the mill using a rotary table to index rotationally, the "I-beam" shape being formed:
There may be a forum limitation on size, thus I will stop and continue later. This old fart has to sleep despite the reminiscent stimulation! joc
The pictures are incredible.
I'm not fully familiar with the Northerns; though I know most were two cylinder types, some were three cylinder types. Did the 5632 have a third cylinder and if it did... You know I'm going to ask- Did you engineer that in?
I'm curious as to why you went all ball bearings, even though your steam model is much smaller scale than the 5632. Why did you prefer ball bearings over tapered roller bearings? I would have thought the roller bearings would stand up to more wear and tear given the amount of thrust delivered along with the axial rotation.
The way I would have had it figured, I would have used spherical rollers on the baker valve and the like and tapered rollers on the drive wheels and rods.
I'd appreciate your insight.
When you wake up... :P
I'm curious about flange size, since they look standard in the pictures, though I would have, again, guessed that a slightly wider flange would be used on your scale locomotive given its weight.
I also noticed the counterweights on the drivers and have questions about balancing --or is it cosmetic since at that size and weight, I don't know how much rail hammer you might have expected...
Counterweights are entirely cosmetic, fastened in place after wheel machining, as no casting was used, making very difficult the "carving out" of such shapes.The pictures are incredible. Most taken before completion of much cosmetic detail, handguards, piping, etc.
I'm not fully familiar with the Northerns; though I know most were two cylinder types, some were three cylinder types. Did the 5632 have a third cylinder and if it did... You know I'm going to ask- Did you engineer that in? All CBQ Class 05, 05-A were two-cylindered locomotives using Baker valve gear.
I'm curious as to why you went all ball bearings, even though your steam model is much smaller scale than the 5632. Why did you prefer ball bearings over tapered roller bearings? I would have thought the roller bearings would stand up to more wear and tear given the amount of thrust delivered along with the axial rotation. Calculated axial loads were all only a few % of bearings' ratings. Valve gear pivot points use 3/16" ID ball bearings with 1/2" OD; no tapered roller exists that tiny to my knowledge. Use of frictionless bearings throughout is actually frivolous, most model builders apply them only to axles.
The way I would have had it figured, I would have used spherical rollers on the baker valve and the like and tapered rollers on the drive wheels and rods.
I'd appreciate your insight. Sherical bearings are used in small (crosshead) end of main rods, and in side-rod connections to the drivers. Again, ball bearings rated out at far more capacity than actually needed, are easily applied. Manufacturing tolerances on tapered roller bearings are such that, being angled, considerable variation in "stack-up" will present itself when several "identical" bearings are checked, thus requiring a means of adjusting to accomplish proper mating of cone/roller assembly and outer race.
When you wake up... :P
I'm curious about flange size, since they look standard in the pictures, though I would have, again, guessed that a slightly wider flange would be used on your scale locomotive given its weight. Flanges are machined to modelling standards for 1-1/2" scale. Flange height is 0.187", width 0.156.
I also noticed the counterweights on the drivers and have questions about balancing --or is it cosmetic since at that size and weight, I don't know how much rail hammer you might have expected...
July 27th, 2013, 03:06 PM
First (8) 0-5 class # 5600-5607 built by Baldwin, 1930. Following 27 built by CBQ shops, class 05-A, 1936-40. 5632 built August, 1940.
Above taken during railfan trip 1959.
Above, the ticket for that trip, hidden for years amongst my Mother's things, found in 1986 when she died.
Prototype 5632 engine weight 476,000 lbs, excluding tender. Tender weight empty, 158,000 lbs., water capacity 18,000 gallons, coal capacity 54,000 lbs. Engine & tender overall length 107 feet.
My model, scale 1-1/2" per foot (1/8 scale) engine weight 1,000 lbs., tender dry 300 lbs. Tender water capacity 13 gallons. Engine & tender overall length 13 feet. Engine alone, 8 feet long, 16 inches high.
Last pic will not post, perhaps run out of space? Will continue on new post.
metaphore
looking at the driving wheels
if it weren't for the eccentrics, the thing wouldn't go nowhere
(nor exist for that matter)
July 27th, 2013, 03:14 PM
Above 5 pics, the tender under construction and complete, out on my trackage. Gauge is 7-1/2", rail purchased from an aluminum extrusion facility in Kansas. My layout was an irregular series of ovals, 750 feet long, with a switchout to allow locomotive to exit and be stored in the shop building pictured previous.
Eccentrics = Counterweights? Much work was done attempting to smooth out the huge wheels' effect on the rail, but as I understand it, the fact that the two cylinders operate 90` out of phase with one another, accounts for the futility. Three cylinders would have a positive effect, however increasing difficulty of access for maintenance purposes. jocular
eccentric:
1.not having the same center, as two circles one inside the other
without a shared axis
and
1.a disk set off center on a shaft and revolving inside a strap that is attached to one end of a rod, thereby converting the circular motion of the shaft into back-and-forth motion of the rod or the other way 'round converting the back and forth motion of the rod to circular motion
also:
2.an odd or unconventional person
ergo the double entendre metaphore
For Clarity- quotes repaired.
Most taken before completion of much cosmetic detail, handguards, piping, etc.
All CBQ Class 05, 05-A were two-cylindered locomotives using Baker valve gear.
Calculated axial loads were all only a few % of bearings' ratings. Valve gear pivot points use 3/16" ID ball bearings with 1/2" OD; no tapered roller exists that tiny to my knowledge. Use of frictionless bearings throughout is actually frivolous, most model builders apply them only to axles.
Sherical bearings are used in small (crosshead) end of main rods, and in side-rod connections to the drivers. Again, ball bearings rated out at far more capacity than actually needed, are easily applied. Manufacturing tolerances on tapered roller bearings are such that, being angled, considerable variation in "stack-up" will present itself when several "identical" bearings are checked, thus requiring a means of adjusting to accomplish proper mating of cone/roller assembly and outer race.
Flanges are machined to modelling standards for 1-1/2" scale. Flange height is 0.187", width 0.156.
Counterweights are entirely cosmetic, fastened in place after wheel machining, as no casting was used, making very difficult the "carving out" of such shapes.He was referring to the eccentrics as the people that keep it alive.
For good measure, here's a few more of the rather unusual projects I've done. Sorry for the poor quality of pics, I have been unable to scan photos directly and then use them, wrong format available with camera software.
1959 Ranchero 4X4. 3/4 ton front & rear axles, transfer case, 4 spd. transmission. Custom built front subframe, entire Ranchero original chassis still present.
1965 Mustang 4X4 conversion. I-H Scout front axle and suspension, Ford Top-Loader 4 speed, Scout Transfer case, Ford 9" rear axle.
1969 Mustang Mach I, 351W Engine, EFI conversion using Ford GT-40 intake manifold, 1993 Cobra EFI system, Mass Air, 24 lb/hr injectors, '93 Cobra PCM (Powertrain Control Module, the "computer).
1964 Falcon with 1960 Lincoln 430 cu. in. engine, Borg-Warner T-10 4-speed, Ford 9" rear axle. Fast little car!
While I squirmed in my seat reading about how you converted a mustang into a 4x4... seeing you put fuel injection on a Boss 352 made me fall out of my chair.
I'm honestly surprised at you.
Well, the 1959 Ranchero I used as a work truck for many years, the '64 Falcon I bought new, ran it awhile with the Lincoln, then they introduced the new Mustang car in April, '64, had to put Falcon back to riginal to trade it in. The Mustang 4X4? Never what I wanted it to be......the '69 MACH I was owned by the son of a lawyer in Albuquerque, who paid my way there by air from Phoenix, I drove the carburetted car back home to my shop, converted it to EFI, father & son then flew in to drive it back to Albuq. They were delighted with the results; I liked the five grand! Fell off your chair? Why, did you feel it sacrilegious? jocular
Perhaps I'm just strange in this regard- I prefer a carb. I can work on one, tune one, rebuild one...
Why fight progress? EFI is more efficient, more emissions-free, and if your friendly municipal leadership says so, illegal to drive unless emissions requirements met, etc., etc.
PLUS, when you get pissed-off enough at yourself to use the carburetted rig running in the closed garage, ya might die! EFI consistently can test Carbon Monoxide emitted at zero % or extremely close to it. jocular
It also relies on the PCM, o2 sensors and such to operate, is dependent on many sensitive parts and clogs up.
Come on, mate! I have one with 140,000 miles on it, only 2 problems thus far have been experienced: Fuel pressure sensor, "high input impedance", vehicle running fine, but replaced the sensor. Transmission Torque Converter Clutch Solenoid failure, no converter clutch engagement, I drove it that way home to Missouri from Arizona, no problems, replaced the solenoid, everything fine since, about 20,000 miles now. These things tell us WTF is wrong, when something goes wrong. Have you ever worked on: A Rochester Quadrajet carb. of the last known vintage, or a "Variable Venturi" carb? Christ, now those things beckoned from wet dreams, no doubt!! jocular
| « The 3rd International Conference on Mechatronics and Applied Mechanics（ICMAM2013） | My Simple-minded Horsepower » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
