An approach to building a GWR 1854 Saddle Tank

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello


Some background
I am an 00 and now largely EM modeler gradually moving from 00 to EM over, some might say, a somewhat extended period of nine years. Nine years because it's taken me this long to get this far with my new (as opposed to the original) model of the Great Western station of Yeovil Pen Mill set in 1922. I did build a cut down version in 00 (with a lot of input from Iain Rice) back in the early to mid 2000's but eventually, that had to go.

In 2014 I had the opportunity to build a 20'x10" shed in the garden and Iain and I planned a Yeovil mark 2. In fact it happened the other way around, he came up with the plan and I then got an architect friend to design a shed to fit it, which my daughter Jeanne and I then built.

The station itself is built on 6 baseboards and a fairly blow by blow account of my experiences battling with track building is recorded on the Templot website. Actually, both Templot websites, as you probably know Martin Wynne changed software in December 2020 and sort of started again.

For a number of reasons I'd not done anything to the layout for just over two years, but felt that this summer I really needed to see if I could get my enthusiasm back again. So I took myself off to a week of wall to wall trains at Missenden Abbey for the week long modelers retreat. I'd done this before in 2017 , 18 and 19 and found them very enjoyable and a great learning experience. This year didn't disappoint and I've just returned fired up with enthusiasm for the project fully restored I'm delighted to say...the result of good company, good tutors, and good nosh.

So what is an 00 turned EM modeler doing on a Scalefour site. Well, I've been a member of the Scalefour Society since the early/mid 90's. Ive always admired what P4 track looks like, the way it runs, and the standard of modeling generally within the society and this is something that I aspire to.

I don't however feel that I've got the skills to build a layout the size of Yeovil in P4 in any sort of reasonable time frame. In fact, I think I might well have given up a long time ago, had I tried to do it to P4 standards. Notwithstanding this, I have posted questions before on the forum and received very helpful answers and am hoping for a similar response this time as well!


Saddle Tank 1854 Wills body Wills etched chassis/frames

Barring a Buffalo class Pannier,(Gibson) hastily converted to EM from 00, and a three quarter built Mogul 43xx class(Mainline modified with a Mitchel Cab and Firebox), I have no motive power for Yeovil. When I last built a loco, about 9 years ago, I'd built a Finney Bulldog fully compensated(as opposed to one fixed axel) and ditto a Mitchel Mogul, and was sufficiently pleased to note the smoothness with which they negotiated my trackwork to want to continue with this type of suspension for future builds.

So my question is do you have any suggestions to the spec that I've laid out below.

The basic proposed spec for a loco on Yeovil is therefore
1. Full Compensation
2. Gibson Wheels. High Level Hornblocks.
3. High Level Road Runner Compact. (this will vary according to loco size.)
4. High Level Coreless 2013. (this will vary according to loco size.)
5. Zimo Sound Chip (MS450 probably) , Ive used the older MX645 and found them excellent.
5a. Stay alive (Edit)
6. Speaker in Coal bunker on tank locos or the boiler maybe? (or in Tender when appropriate)
7. Pick up through brass 0.4mm wire bearing on back of the rim.
8. Removable brake gear
9. Leaf spring etches attached to the pickup bus on each side to avoid shorting
10. So leaf springs are removable to allow wheels to be dropped out as a pair.

The Zimo chip to be housed in the Tank/Boiler area stuck to a plate of some sort?
And the Motor to be housed vertically in the Fire Box. leaving space in the boiler for a small speaker as an alternative to the coal bunker maybe?

The photos below show an earlier design with the motor parallel to the chassis, the speaker out of sight in the bunker, and the decoder lying in the bottom of the boiler.
I also need to devise a simple way of fixing/screwing the top of the tanks in place.


[/img]

DE5711BC-34BD-47F1-93DD-077CDDF3ED03_1_105_c.jpeg

Thoughts are very welcome.
Kind regards
Andrew

[Paul Townsend]

That’s a pretty good spec and will deliver good results.
However I would change 1. to use csb suspension and 2. to get Ultrscale wheels if you can afford the extra dosh and order well ahead.

We have over 20 locos on Highbridge, say 15 compensated and the most recent with csb
All run well, the csbs are better.
Read the Will Lichfield threads here and the case studies at Clag.
It’s easy and you will never revert to compensation or single springs

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello Paul
Thank you for your thoughts

With CSB I suppose I have a fear of it, mainly because I've never tried it. I've built about a dozen locos over the years, all very conventional with part compensated and the last two fully compensated with conventional pickups. My concern with CSB is what if I get the weight distribution wrong, or it doesn't haul as much as a conventionally compensated loco does? Do you have any thoughts or experience here? Haulage capacity is pretty key to me with 4'.0" radius curves on a 1:60 hill.

As to Wheels. Yes I'm quite a fan of Ultrascale (they run true, without effort!), and infact I have a Dean Goods with a set on, but they have Nickle silver tyres and I'm not really sure if the grip is as good as it would be if they were steel(probably my imagination...) maybe just brainwashed...?

Kind regards
Andrew

[petermeyer]

This my saddle tank based on the Wills kit. It is numbered in the 15xx range so is a Wolverhampton rather that Swindon design such as the 1854. It has a High Level RR+ with a drive extender and a 1219 coreless motor up in the boiler. Wheels are Ultrascale that I'd had since the days when the EMGS sold them. It is fully compensated. The weight of the whitemetal kit helps with any adhesion issues. The challenge with CSB in 00/EM I guess would be getting everything between the frames.

IMG_0159.jpg

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi Andrew,

By pure coincidence I am currently having a weekend modelling session with my good friend, Philip Sutton, who is the UK distributor for Zimo. I showed him your opening posting and asked if he would like to comment.

Philip says that the MS450 is a 'Maxi' chip suited to main line, larger locomotives. With an 0-6-0, a smaller sound decoder such as the MS480 or MS490 will be just as capable and offer a substantial space saving. It is always recommended to go for as large a loudspeaker as is physically possible within the available space - choosing a smaller chip may facilitate this. He would also recommend the use of a 'stay alive' capacitor in anything with a small wheelbase.

The performance of Mostyn's tiny 0-4-0 dock shunter was significantly improved by fitting 'stay alives'.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Richard

[Philip Hall]

Hello Paul

As to Wheels. Yes I'm quite a fan of Ultrascale (they run true, without effort!), and infact I have a Dean Goods with a set on, but they have Nickle silver tyres and I'm not really sure if the grip is as good as it would be if they were steel(probably my imagination...) maybe just brainwashed...?

Kind regards
Andrew

I don't know where this 'steel tyres pull more' came from but I guess people must have found it so. However, many years ago Mick Moore built a pair of (I think) LMS Crabs and wrote about it in MRJ. One had Sharman steel wheels and the other Ultrascale nickel silver. He expected that the steel one (which also had a coarser tread finish) would pull more, but it was the nickel silver one that was better. I believe the conclusion was that the finer finish on the Ultrascale tyre made for better contact with the rail surface.

I have found little, if any difference. My track is all nickel silver rail and I don't clean it all that often. Someone once put forward a notion about 'like metals', nickel wheels on nickel track, steel wheels on steel track etc., but that was more about electrical conductivity and cleanliness.

I've just almost completed a conversion of a Bachmann 'City' 4-4-0 with Ultrascale wheels, and have managed to get it to pull just over 1kg, and the greatest issue has been getting the weight in the right places on such a compact engine and tender given the constraints of the RTR engine. Transfer of tender weight has helped. I have a Bachmann 'Dukedog' fitted with Alan Gibson wheels (checked for truth on the lathe, as I always do) and performance is about the same, notwithstanding the difference in driving wheel diameter.

I think that true running & truly concentric wheels are the most important, whatever kind of suspension you go for.

Philip

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

This my saddle tank based on the Wills kit. It is numbered in the 15xx range so is a Wolverhampton rather that Swindon design such as the 1854. It has a High Level RR+ with a drive extender and a 1219 coreless motor up in the boiler. Wheels are Ultrascale that I'd had since the days when the EMGS sold them. It is fully compensated. The weight of the whitemetal kit helps with any adhesion issues. The challenge with CSB in 00/EM I guess would be getting everything between the frames.

IMG_0159.jpg

Hello Peter
Thank you for your reply and the spec on your saddle tank. Lovely looking model incidentally as are the wagons behind it. I'll keep my fingers crossed on the model's weight and pulling power!

Kind regards
Andrew

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hi Andrew,

By pure coincidence I am currently having a weekend modelling session with my good friend, Philip Sutton, who is the UK distributor for Zimo. I showed him your opening posting and asked if he would like to comment.

Philip says that the MS450 is a 'Maxi' chip suited to main line, larger locomotives. With an 0-6-0, a smaller sound decoder such as the MS480 or MS490 will be just as capable and offer a substantial space saving. It is always recommended to go for as large a loudspeaker as is physically possible within the available space - choosing a smaller chip may facilitate this. He would also recommend the use of a 'stay alive' capacitor in anything with a small wheelbase.

The performance of Mostyn's tiny 0-4-0 dock shunter was significantly improved by fitting 'stay alives'.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Richard

Hello Richard
Thank you for yours and Philips thoughts on the subject, which has reminded me of one item that I left out of the spec...stay alives! I completely forgot them which is ironic as the reason I'd thought of the MS450 as the most suitable contender, was its capability of taking large capacity "stay alives" without any further electronics. I seem to understand that the MS480 needs the following added according to YouChoos website...
"6V direct stay-alive (up to 1000uF) or more via LifeLink or STAC01".

So thanks again and would you or Philip confirm that my understanding is correct?

Kind regards
Andrew

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello Paul

As to Wheels. Yes I'm quite a fan of Ultrascale (they run true, without effort!), and infact I have a Dean Goods with a set on, but they have Nickle silver tyres and I'm not really sure if the grip is as good as it would be if they were steel(probably my imagination...) maybe just brainwashed...?

Kind regards
Andrew

I don't know where this 'steel tyres pull more' came from but I guess people must have found it so. However, many years ago Mick Moore built a pair of (I think) LMS Crabs and wrote about it in MRJ. One had Sharman steel wheels and the other Ultrascale nickel silver. He expected that the steel one (which also had a coarser tread finish) would pull more, but it was the nickel silver one that was better. I believe the conclusion was that the finer finish on the Ultrascale tyre made for better contact with the rail surface.

I have found little, if any difference. My track is all nickel silver rail and I don't clean it all that often. Someone once put forward a notion about 'like metals', nickel wheels on nickel track, steel wheels on steel track etc., but that was more about electrical conductivity and cleanliness.

I've just almost completed a conversion of a Bachmann 'City' 4-4-0 with Ultrascale wheels, and have managed to get it to pull just over 1kg, and the greatest issue has been getting the weight in the right places on such a compact engine and tender given the constraints of the RTR engine. Transfer of tender weight has helped. I have a Bachmann 'Dukedog' fitted with Alan Gibson wheels (checked for truth on the lathe, as I always do) and performance is about the same, notwithstanding the difference in driving wheel diameter.

I think that true running & truly concentric wheels are the most important, whatever kind of suspension you go for.

Philip

Hello Philip,

Thank you very much for your thoughts and, I know. extensive experience in all that's 4mm. So maybe I can put aside fears of needlessly spinning wheels once and for all so far as their material is concerned.

I don't know how much a kilo is in terms of number of coaches or wagons(sounds like a lot), but one of the things I have learned over the years, is the impact of free running stock on what a loco will pull.

So thank you, and for your final sentence about the importance of running true and concentric. I shall pay more attention there in future.

Kind regards
Andrew


Kind regards
Andrew

[Will L]

With CSB I suppose I have a fear of it, mainly because I've never tried it. I've built about a dozen locos over the years, all very conventional with part compensated and the last two fully compensated with conventional pickups. My concern with CSB is what if I get the weight distribution wrong, or it doesn't haul as much as a conventionally compensated loco does? Do you have any thoughts or experience here? Haulage capacity is pretty key to me with 4'.0" radius curves on a 1:60 hill.

Andrew, I must Admit I was inclined to suggest CSBs too, Well I would wouldn't I, but Paul got in first. However I might as well go through my reasons for preferring CSB

1. All those who have decided to adopt sprung chassis agree that they offer the best running.
2. One of the key features of a CSB chassis is that, by design, it will give the maximum available haulage for the loco weight.
3. As both a fully compensated chassis and a CSB one have a full set of horn blocks but CSBs don’t need all those beams, a CSB chassis is actually simpler and easier to build.
4. No matter what suspension you use, to get the best haulage out of your loco, you want even weight distribution across the drivers. The CSB design stage specifically sorts out the weight distribution for you.
5. To achieve this it does dictate where the locos Centre of Gravity (CofG) should be.
6. If you build a compensated chassis, the location of the beam pivots will impact how the weight gets distributed across the drivers. Particularly with multiple beams this may not be all that intuitive and, if your concerned about haulage, you still need to be aware of where the CofG should be to ensure you get even weight distribution and maximum pulling power.
7. Unlike separate springs per wheel, all the adjustment needed on completion is to ensure the CofG ends up in the right place. While this may pose a few issues with some of the more eccentric prototypes, the right place is central over the driving wheelbase*, pretty much where you'd expect it to turn up anyway. With a Saddle tank, all that extra tank space over the boiler should make weighting the model, to get the CofG right, a doddle.

For what it’s worth, I see CSB as just a logical progression from compensation and just a logical extension of the Mike Sharman approach to modelling. The basic chassis building skills needed to set up a full set of working horn blocks apply equally to both. Once you have that, other good things like being able to drop the wheel sets out of the chassis come for free.

* For simplicity, assuming no weight carrying additional wheels. My write ups (see link in the signature) cover the implications of weight carrying bogies too.

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for yours and Philips thoughts on the subject, which has reminded me of one item that I left out of the spec...stay alives! I completely forgot them which is ironic as the reason I'd thought of the MS450 as the most suitable contender, was its capability of taking large capacity "stay alives" without any further electronics. I seem to understand that the MS480 needs the following added according to YouChoos website...
"6V direct stay-alive (up to 1000uF) or more via LifeLink or STAC01".

So thanks again and would you or Philip confirm that my understanding is correct?

Speaking to Philip again, the response is ....

One of the benefits of the large MS450 is that it has an unlimited 'stay alive' capacity via direct connection (16V rated). With the smaller MS480 there is a direct connection allowable of 1000uF [16V not 6V] which may be sufficient for your purposes. However, you can also connect the Zimo STAC03 intermediate circuit which comes with miniature supercapacitors which will provide more 'stay alive' than anyone needs. Although it is an extra board it is very small and contains a voltage converter which allows for the use of the supplied mini supercapacitors which are extremely small. the STAC03 sounds like a complication but in fact allows you to position the capacitors away from the decoder - suiting unused voids in your model. STAC03 has replaced the now obsolete STAC01.

In summary the STAC03 unit allows you to use much smaller and higher value capacitors (which come with the unit).

If you would like more advice and/or detail Philip will be back in the office on Tuesday.

Cheers,

Richard

[Paul Townsend]

Hello Paul
Thank you for your thoughts

With CSB I suppose I have a fear of it, mainly because I've never tried it. I've built about a dozen locos over the years, all very conventional with part compensated and the last two fully compensated with conventional pickups. My concern with CSB is what if I get the weight distribution wrong, or it doesn't haul as much as a conventionally compensated loco does? Do you have any thoughts or experience here? Haulage capacity is pretty key to me with 4'.0" radius curves on a 1:60 hill.

When you use the spreadsheet to set the support positions you set the weigjht distribution, eg for an 0-6-0 34%-32%-34% to avoid seesawing.
The graphical presentation makes this very easy. I have built 3 CSB locos and my chum Tim several more. They are all good runners. The only thing that can go wrong in implementing the design is that the ride height is a tad out. In 5 minutes you just change the wire gauge to make it correct.

I have many more locos to build and they will all use CSB.

[Philip Hall]

Hello Andrew,

A kilo sounds a lot but equates to approximately 20 x 4 - wheel wagons @ 50g apiece. Carriages can obviously vary between the heavy, like Rocar (sometimes 250g), Bachmann Bulleids (170g) or Hornby GW Colletts or Maunsells (130g) I usually weight up my carriages to 190g so buffers can be in contact but with sprung RTR Roco style close couplers I can get away with 140g. So the City I spoke of was an eight coach rake of standard Hornby Maunsells, close coupled so it moves off as one unit rather than a loose coupled freight train that you sometimes see.

A GW Castle from a Mitchell kit, compensated, recently tested here, walked away with that same rake and would have taken a lot more. A mixed rake of fifteen (the Maunsells plus another seven at 190g) was handled (just) by a Hornby King Arthur, a total of 2.3kg! All this on a dead level railway with 4'6" radius curves, but the train was reasonably free running, which as has been said, counts for a lot.

Philip

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

With CSB I suppose I have a fear of it, mainly because I've never tried it. I've built about a dozen locos over the years, all very conventional with part compensated and the last two fully compensated with conventional pickups. My concern with CSB is what if I get the weight distribution wrong, or it doesn't haul as much as a conventionally compensated loco does? Do you have any thoughts or experience here? Haulage capacity is pretty key to me with 4'.0" radius curves on a 1:60 hill.

Andrew, I must Admit I was inclined to suggest CSBs too, Well I would wouldn't I, but Paul got in first. However I might as well go through my reasons for preferring CSB

1. All those who have decided to adopt sprung chassis agree that they offer the best running.
2. One of the key features of a CSB chassis is that, by design, it will give the maximum available haulage for the loco weight.
3. As both a fully compensated chassis and a CSB one have a full set of horn blocks but CSBs don’t need all those beams, a CSB chassis is actually simpler and easier to build.
4. No matter what suspension you use, to get the best haulage out of your loco, you want even weight distribution across the drivers. The CSB design stage specifically sorts out the weight distribution for you.
5. To achieve this it does dictate where the locos Centre of Gravity (CofG) should be.
6. If you build a compensated chassis, the location of the beam pivots will impact how the weight gets distributed across the drivers. Particularly with multiple beams this may not be all that intuitive and, if your concerned about haulage, you still need to be aware of where the CofG should be to ensure you get even weight distribution and maximum pulling power.
7. Unlike separate springs per wheel, all the adjustment needed on completion is to ensure the CofG ends up in the right place. While this may pose a few issues with some of the more eccentric prototypes, the right place is central over the driving wheelbase*, pretty much where you'd expect it to turn up anyway. With a Saddle tank, all that extra tank space over the boiler should make weighting the model, to get the CofG right, a doddle.

For what it’s worth, I see CSB as just a logical progression from compensation and just a logical extension of the Mike Sharman approach to modelling. The basic chassis building skills needed to set up a full set of working horn blocks apply equally to both. Once you have that, other good things like being able to drop the wheel sets out of the chassis come for free.

* For simplicity, assuming no weight carrying additional wheels. My write ups (see link in the signature) cover the implications of weight carrying bogies too.

Hello Will
Well, Paul seems to be convinced of the efficacy of CSB (I wasn't surprised to hear you expound it of course) and as I enjoy trying out new things I shall go off now and read all that you've written about it and see if I can get my brain around it. So thank you for your very full and persuasive message. I'll report more here on my discoveries and progress, so you will soon see if you've brought me screaming from 20th to 21st centuries.

Kind regards
Andrew

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for yours and Philips thoughts on the subject, which has reminded me of one item that I left out of the spec...stay alives! I completely forgot them which is ironic as the reason I'd thought of the MS450 as the most suitable contender, was its capability of taking large capacity "stay alives" without any further electronics. I seem to understand that the MS480 needs the following added according to YouChoos website...
"6V direct stay-alive (up to 1000uF) or more via LifeLink or STAC01".

So thanks again and would you or Philip confirm that my understanding is correct?

Speaking to Philip again, the response is ....

One of the benefits of the large MS450 is that it has an unlimited 'stay alive' capacity via direct connection (16V rated). With the smaller MS480 there is a direct connection allowable of 1000uF [16V not 6V] which may be sufficient for your purposes. However, you can also connect the Zimo STAC03 intermediate circuit which comes with miniature supercapacitors which will provide more 'stay alive' than anyone needs. Although it is an extra board it is very small and contains a voltage converter which allows for the use of the supplied mini supercapacitors which are extremely small. the STAC03 sounds like a complication but in fact allows you to position the capacitors away from the decoder - suiting unused voids in your model. STAC03 has replaced the now obsolete STAC01.

In summary the STAC03 unit allows you to use much smaller and higher value capacitors (which come with the unit).

If you would like more advice and/or detail Philip will be back in the office on Tuesday.

Cheers,

Richard

Hello Richard
Thank you very much for coming back so quickly and for some very valuable information. I think all is clear, but in case I need to ask more questions do you have a telephone number or email address for Philip? Do also please pass on my thanks to him as well.

Kind regards
Andrew

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello Paul
Thank you for your thoughts

With CSB I suppose I have a fear of it, mainly because I've never tried it. I've built about a dozen locos over the years, all very conventional with part compensated and the last two fully compensated with conventional pickups. My concern with CSB is what if I get the weight distribution wrong, or it doesn't haul as much as a conventionally compensated loco does? Do you have any thoughts or experience here? Haulage capacity is pretty key to me with 4'.0" radius curves on a 1:60 hill.

When you use the spreadsheet to set the support positions you set the weigjht distribution, eg for an 0-6-0 34%-32%-34% to avoid seesawing.
The graphical presentation makes this very easy. I have built 3 CSB locos and my chum Tim several more. They are all good runners. The only thing that can go wrong in implementing the design is that the ride height is a tad out. In 5 minutes you just change the wire gauge to make it correct.

I have many more locos to build and they will all use CSB.

Thanks Paul, I think you and Will have convinced me to have a go, it'll be fun to see if I can make it work. If I cant for any reason, then nothing ventured, nothing gained!
Andrew

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello Andrew,

A kilo sounds a lot but equates to approximately 20 x 4 - wheel wagons @ 50g apiece. Carriages can obviously vary between the heavy, like Rocar (sometimes 250g), Bachmann Bulleids (170g) or Hornby GW Colletts or Maunsells (130g) I usually weigh up my carriages to 190g so buffers can be in contact but with sprung RTR Roco style close couplers I can get away with 140g. So the City I spoke of was an eight coach rake of standard Hornby Maunsells, close coupled so it moves off as one unit rather than a loose coupled freight train that you sometimes see.

A GW Castle from a Mitchell kit, compensated, recently tested here, walked away with that same rake, and would have taken a lot more. A mixed rake of fifteen (the Maunsells plus another seven at 190g) was handled (just) by a Hornby King Arthur, a total of 2.3kg! All this on a dead level railway with 4'6" radius curves, but the train was reasonably free running, which as has been said, counts for a lot.

Philip

Thanks Philip,
That you managed to get a City 4 4 0 to pull 8 coaches is no mean feat, and I need to be able to achieve something close to that to pull the Channel Islands Boat Express. On its way down it has to do this up a 1:100 gradient and up a 1:60 on the way back!
Andrew

[Tony Wilkins]

Hello Paul

As to Wheels. Yes I'm quite a fan of Ultrascale (they run true, without effort!), and infact I have a Dean Goods with a set on, but they have Nickle silver tyres and I'm not really sure if the grip is as good as it would be if they were steel(probably my imagination...) maybe just brainwashed...?

Kind regards
Andrew

I don't know where this 'steel tyres pull more' came from but I guess people must have found it so. However, many years ago Mick Moore built a pair of (I think) LMS Crabs and wrote about it in MRJ. One had Sharman steel wheels and the other Ultrascale nickel silver. He expected that the steel one (which also had a coarser tread finish) would pull more, but it was the nickel silver one that was better. I believe the conclusion was that the finer finish on the Ultrascale tyre made for better contact with the rail surface.

I have found little, if any difference. My track is all nickel silver rail and I don't clean it all that often. Someone once put forward a notion about 'like metals', nickel wheels on nickel track, steel wheels on steel track etc., but that was more about electrical conductivity and cleanliness.

I've just almost completed a conversion of a Bachmann 'City' 4-4-0 with Ultrascale wheels, and have managed to get it to pull just over 1kg, and the greatest issue has been getting the weight in the right places on such a compact engine and tender given the constraints of the RTR engine. Transfer of tender weight has helped. I have a Bachmann 'Dukedog' fitted with Alan Gibson wheels (checked for truth on the lathe, as I always do) and performance is about the same, notwithstanding the difference in driving wheel diameter.

I think that true running & truly concentric wheels are the most important, whatever kind of suspension you go for.

Philip

I think the idea of using similar metal for the wheels and rail originates from the practice of using dissimilar materials for bearings.
My personal preference for steel tyred wheels was more to do with dirt collection rather than anything else although in practice it doesn't seem to make that much difference. The traction debate caused me to build a length of test track to include three sets of track such that the spacing between the rails also allowed me to test OO locos prior to conversion. The three sets of track were made using steel, Nickel Silver and HiNi rail. The test method was to put a loco on each set of rails in turn and increase the gradient of the track until the loco lost grip. I could find no discernible difference in the adhesion factor between the different types of rail. Like Philip, apart from an initial rail clean, I have been pleasantly surprised by just how little cleaning the track on Brimsdown has needed. It is all HiNi rail. There seem to be certain places where the dirt accumulates and these are easily seen and dealt with. The rolling stock varies with some stock needing more attention than others and the worst is the Lima MetCam DMU with American pickup system, so only 4 wheels out of 8 collect the current and most of the muck. It has steel tyres.
Regards
Tony.

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello Tony
Good to hear from you, and good that you found no discernable difference between the three types of metal. Also supports Philip's puzzlement at where the idea came from and that in all probability checking that the wheels run true, is more likely to have an effect on haulage power than what the tread is made from.

Kind regards
Andrew
PS I got the Lindstroms you pointed out to me the other day. Waiting for them to be delivered.

[David B]

I am far from being known as a loco builder but with the very few I have made I have settled on CSB. I have tried the other methods and found CSB to be the easiest and best to build. As far as the weight distribution is concerned, I am clueless and the spreadsheets might have been written in an alien tongue - my mind goes AWOL when I look at them. However, many of the calculations have already been made and published (I think many are on the CLAG site) and there are fellow modellers out there who are willing to help if appealed to for those locos for which the information is not available. The CLAG site is well worth perusing for CSB information.

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hello David
Good to hear from you.
Thank you for your further affirmation that this is a good route to go down.

Having said that last night I looked at Will's spreadsheet and at the CLAG site....Well, I understood almost nothing on first perusal of the spreadsheet (I've a feeling I'm mildly dyslexic and find instructions very hard to follow) and laughed quietly to myself at the thought of this being straight forward, and easier than beams. No way is my first reaction!

However I shall persist and with a mixture of the spreadsheet, the Clag site and High Level, hope to prevail. A bit terrifying at the moment !!

Kind regards
Andrew

[Richard Oldfield]

Hi Andrew,

I think all is clear, but in case I need to ask more questions do you have a telephone number or email address for Philip? Do also please pass on my thanks to him as well.

Phone number = 01780-470086 (after 10.00am)
email address = admin@railexclusive.com

Cheers,

Richard

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Hi Andrew,

I think all is clear, but in case I need to ask more questions do you have a telephone number or email address for Philip? Do also please pass on my thanks to him as well.

Phone number = 01780-470086 (after 10.00am)
email address = admin@railexclusive.com

Cheers,

Richard

Thanks very much Richard.
Andrew

[Will L]

Having said that last night I looked at Will's spreadsheet and at the CLAG site....Well, I understood almost nothing on first perusal of the spreadsheet (I've a feeling I'm mildly dyslexic and find instructions very hard to follow) and laughed quietly to myself at the thought of this being straight forward, and easier than beams. No way is my first reaction!

I think you are confusing the difficulty in trying to understand the spreadsheet, which may be understandable, with the difficulty of actually building the chassis, which is what I was referring to when I said it was easier to do than compensation beams. As David said there are several people about, like me, who will happily do the spread sheet work for you.

To help you on your way, I'll give you the basic CSB plot and you can put the spread sheet away and forget about it.

it just happen that in the GLAG article on CSB plots the very first example in the GWR section is a CSB plots is for 7'3" x 8'3" wheelbase which is right for your 1854 Saddle Tank. It actually gives three possible plots (as there is never only one right answer) but the first one is perfectly acceptable unless you find it conflicts with something in the actual chassis. (If it does just say and we'll sort out another one)

This is it


Because I have the spreadsheet I know the finished loco Center of Gravity should be 1.5mm behind the centre of the middle axle.

Depending on the loco weight the following spring wire sizes are appropriate. Go for the one closet to the actual finished weight

• 110 grams 11 thou wire
• 154 -----> 12
• 210 -----> 13
• 285 -----> 14
• 375 -----> 15

To build the thing get yourself the Highlevel CSB Jig which is £4 very well spent and use that to set out the fixed fulcrum points on the chassis sides. This really makes the job simplicity itself and is an absolute godsend even if you do know how to do it without.

Once she's built, weight her to get the CofG in the right place. To get the best out adhesion out of your compensated chassis you should have done that to, but not many know enough maths to do the sums and place the CofG so do it by guesswork. The thing about CSBs is that guesswork is unnecessary. Super accuracy on setting the CofG isn't necessary. I practice all the measurements on CSB can be to the nearest .5mm. Final chose the wire size corresponding to the loco's weight from the table above.

An aside on accuracy. The second possibility on the GLAG website quotes some of the fulcrum position to an accuracy of 0.1mm. This is a fairly early plot and it was only when we had been playing the game for a while it became clear that this level of accuracy wasn't necessary. If anybodies interested that second diagram would be better given as 13.5 -15.5- 19.5 - 12 which gives just as good results as the one given.

An aside on dyslexia. You and me both brother. You don't have to let it get in the way.

[Andrew Bluett-Duncan]

Having said that last night I looked at Will's spreadsheet and at the CLAG site....Well, I understood almost nothing on first perusal of the spreadsheet (I've a feeling I'm mildly dyslexic and find instructions very hard to follow) and laughed quietly to myself at the thought of this being straight forward, and easier than beams. No way is my first reaction!

I think you are confusing the difficulty in trying to understand the spreadsheet, which may be understandable, with the difficulty of actually building the chassis, which is what I was referring to when I said it was easier to do than compensation beams. As David said there are several people about, like me, who will happily do the spread sheet work for you.

To help you on your way, I'll give you the basic CSB plot and you can put the spread sheet away and forget about it.

it just happen that in the GLAG article on CSB plots the very first example in the GWR section is a CSB plots is for 7'3" x 8'3" wheelbase which is right for your 1854 Saddle Tank. It actually gives three possible plots (as there is never only one right answer) but the first one is perfectly acceptable unless you find it conflicts with something in the actual chassis. (If it does just say and we'll sort out another one)

This is it


Because I have the spreadsheet I know the finished loco Center of Gravity should be 1.5mm behind the centre of the middle axle.

Depending on the loco weight the following spring wire sizes are appropriate. Go for the one closet to the actual finished weight

• 110 grams 11 thou wire
• 154 -----> 12
• 210 -----> 13
• 285 -----> 14
• 375 -----> 15

To build the thing get yourself the Highlevel CSB Jig which is £4 very well spent and use that to set out the fixed fulcrum points on the chassis sides. This really makes the job simplicity itself and is an absolute godsend even if you do know how to do it without.

Once she's built, weight her to get the CofG in the right place. To get the best out adhesion out of your compensated chassis you should have done that to, but not many know enough maths to do the sums and place the CofG so do it by guesswork. The thing about CSBs is that guesswork is unnecessary. Super accuracy on setting the CofG isn't necessary. I practice all the measurements on CSB can be to the nearest .5mm. Final chose the wire size corresponding to the loco's weight from the table above.

An aside on accuracy. The second possibility on the GLAG website quotes some of the fulcrum position to an accuracy of 0.1mm. This is a fairly early plot and it was only when we had been playing the game for a while it became clear that this level of accuracy wasn't necessary. If anybodies interested that second diagram would be better given as 13.5 -15.5- 19.5 - 12 which gives just as good results as the one given.

An aside on dyslexia. You and me both brother. You don't have to let it get in the way.

Hello Will

Your offer is extremely kind, so first of all thank you very much indeed. Secondly, I happen to have a High Level Jig bought 10 or more years ago before I saw the "terrifying spreadsheet", and to my regret, didn't go any further with it. Along with the High Level jig I also found some of the High Level tags to connect the hornblocks to the CSB. What I'm unsure about is whether I have the requisite handrail knobs in stock.

I take it that in some way(that I've yet to understand) I'll be able to connect what you've given me with the High Level jig and plot the correct fulcrum points on the chassis, perhaps rather more accurately or easily, than without it.

What metal do the beams need to be made of.

Thanks again for your help
Kind regards
Andrew