Big traction engine with 44 plows

[crueby]

Hey all,

If anyone you know doubts the power of steam engines, show them this video that a friend sent me a link to. A Case tractor with a single cylinder engine pulling 44 plows all rigged up on one platform, plowing a field:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xDj45zF-l0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xDj45zF-l0</a>
Chris

[mcostello]

On one of the videos it shows the crank and flywheel flexing.

[crueby]

Hello Chris,

Thats very much the American way of direct ploughing a field, but I guess fields over there can be a lot bigger than ours.

Over here in England,  fields used to be ploughed by a pair of ploughing engines with huge winch drums under their bellies. The engines would position themselve on either side of the field and take turns (bouts) pulling a six furrow plough back and fore.



This is my 2" scale Fowler 16 HP single PE. That big cylinder could realy bark when it was working hard.

Mike

Yeah, out in the midwest part of the country the fields disappear out of sight before the next road sometimes.
I picked up a set of plans for one of the big plowing engines like you show, its on my list but other fun projects keep jumping the queue!  Beaut of a model, that plow assembly alone must have taken a while to make!

[Roger B]

The plough in this thread only has one blade but it's quite a big one 

https://www.modelenginemaker.com/index.php/topic,2550.msg109055.html#msg109055

[crueby]

The plough in this thread only has one blade but it's quite a big one 

https://www.modelenginemaker.com/index.php/topic,2550.msg109055.html#msg109055

Those deep-plowing setups are quite impressive!

[crueby]

Hello Chris,

Thats very much the American way of direct ploughing a field, but I guess fields over there can be a lot bigger than ours.

Over here in England,  fields used to be ploughed by a pair of ploughing engines with huge winch drums under their bellies. The engines would position themselve on either side of the field and take turns (bouts) pulling a six furrow plough back and fore.



This is my 2" scale Fowler 16 HP single PE. That big cylinder could realy bark when it was working hard.

Mike

Yeah, out in the midwest part of the country the fields disappear out of sight before the next road sometimes.
I picked up a set of plans for one of the big plowing engines like you show, its on my list but other fun projects keep jumping the queue!  Beaut of a model, that plow assembly alone must have taken a while to make!

I came across the box with the plans I had picked up several years ago - think its the same Fowler as your model is, was in one of the magazines years ago as I recall. Quite a good looking engine.

[Vixen]

Hello Chris,

The plans and a contruction series were published in Model Engineer Magazine in the early 1980's. Last time I looked, the castings were still available from Blackgates Engineering in the UK. I just checked their website, the 16HP Single has been discontinued, they still offer the Superba compound engine which had superhearters.

There are some more photos of the engine in the engines showcase section August 2017.

Mike

[crueby]

Hi Mike


Just searched it out. It may be that post is what got me to order the plan set, came with a copy of the articles, its quite a boxfull.


Thanks!

[Jasonb]

Didn't think Blackgates did the 16NHP, certainly not in my 10yr old paper catalogue, Brunell still list it but I would not want to go there.

The Superba series also covered Z7 and Z7S variants if you don't want to have the superheaters, big wheels and valve gear hidden. Then there is the BB1 that Jo is doing.

If you are a member of Traction Talk Forum worth having a look at Ross (Suctionhose's) build of an early single cylinder ploughing engine which is a lot truer to original than Hainings various engines and also the build of a TE1 "farmer's Engine" by Doug Mellor which is a style I've always likes and a good practical model as you can run around the rally field on it as a TE yet still have the double drum to play with.

[mikemill]

When I built my Fowler Plough 35 years ago there were no castings available apart from John Haining's.

There is not a lot wrong with it!

Mike

[Vixen]

Mike.

Thats another fine looking Fowler PE. Nicely painted and lined 

Mike,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There appear to be a lot of Mikes about   

[cnr6400]

And probably even more Mikes than the actual people ones, since a lot of the Mikes here use mikes!  (micrometers of course.....I'll get my hat before the Pun Police arrive again)

[Jasonb]

Please don't take this as criticism of your models gents

But all of Hainings PE designs leave quite a lot to be desired and are what I would call stand off scale as the RC plane boys like to call it in that they look like a BB1, 16NHP etc from 10ft away. However there are so many deviations from what these engines are really like that there's quite a lot WRONG with them.

I know Jo has done extensive redesign work on her BB1 and I got as far as redrawing the front end of mine and just about every part I changed to some extent or other. maybe its the fact that the internet gives up better access to reference material or that most of us are lucky to have better equipped workshops that allows for a closer to prototype t be made these days rather than working on a Myford with vertical slide as many did back in Hainings day. Having built the A7 to the MJ Eng design which is a very true reproduction all taken from works drawings and measuring actual engines it makes the Haining designs more like Mamods than scale models or using timing belts instead of gears on a Merc engine.

really comes down to what the individual want sto build but Knowing what Chris's other scratch builds are like I think he would want to make a model as correct to the original as possible.

[mikemill]

Jason
I have to take issue with your comments, John Haining and Colin Tyler designed and built working model traction and ploughing engines. Anyone who has built a working model steam engine will know that compromises have to be made from the original for them to work well and they did. They had a pair of ploughs and actually ploughed earth. To compare John and Colin, two pioneering model engineers in the field of traction engine models work as no better than a Mamod is an insult. Yes, you are intitled to your opinion but do not disparage fellow M E’s who are no longer able to comment.
Mike

[Jasonb]

Well we will have to agree to disagree on things but as for working models they can certainly still be made practical for use. As drawn the Superba front axle won't even articulate so it cocks a wheel on anything but flat ground even Mamod got that bit right Though maybe Mamod was a bit harsh, more along the freelance Minnie line for detail.

My point was that if Chris was thinking of making the 16NHP he would do well to do some research if it were to be to the same standard as his other models. Same applies for anyone with todays equipment and the internet wanting to make one of these engines.

[Vixen]

Jason,

We know you are a comparative newcomer to model engineering and may not appreciate just how much John Hanning and Colin Tyler were respected in their day.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, it's a free world. But you and your opinion of their work may not earn the same respect.

Sorry

Mike

[mikemill]

Jason

You say you have redesigned your ploughing engine to be more in keeping with the original, maybe you could delight us with a photo of two of your efforts.

Mike

[Jasonb]

How long does one have to have been doing it, I made my Stuart 10V in 1981?

Mike (mill) as I said "I got as far as redesigning the front end " so little to show in the way of photos, however I did make a start on the front axle, still needs the slot elongating for sufficient articulation but it does nave the correct shorter central section and fillets behind the two flanges.



The shorter central section is so that correctly shaped perch plates can fit around it rather than it sticking out the ends of hainings plain rectangular blocks. Also look at the "ball and socket" arrangement on Hainings drawing which can't articulate as the lower cup will hit the upper plate around the ball. The good old internet allows the sharing of photos, this is a selection that I was given after asking for details that gave me something to base my redesign on. there are also a couple there of the rear axle drive plate which is completely missing from the drawings so again it's not going to work very well with no drive to the wheel.





This is about as far as I got before being distracted by other subjects and no doubt the task of altering just about every part on the entire engine. Not one part there is the same as Haining drew it and all will function just fine so no need for simplification just to make it capable of running. The task in hand would also have meant disgarding or heavily modifying many of the castings that I have.



Front wheels also redesigned to have the spokes coming out the middle of the flanges not too far towards the outside as haining had them, correct fillets to represent castings, "socket" to cover flanges on ends of axle, Spokes will have correct dishing, etc



Other things that will be included if I ever decide to pick this one up again

-Correct gear tooth counts which require more than one DP in the gear train and not using the same gear castings that Haining used for all three engines, My A7 has the correct 3 different gear DP and I have driven several that run well so can't see that doing it correctly makes for a less practical engine.

- Correct thickness wheel rims which will be rolled and welded not the thick ones that result from weaker aluminium castings. rears will be the correct 3Tee rings and a spacer with the proper internal joining plate sand 14 rivits per strake as Hainings 4 per strake is nothing like they were.

-Pump, clacks, water lifter all to look like Folwer items externally rather than simple steam fittings, again the my A7 has them all like this and the engines are perfectly drivable.

- And many many more.

As I also said Jo's BB1 is having all the same sort of modifications done including a boiler redesign but she has got a bit further with hers which is in this thread. One only has to look at the first couple of posts and see se has the same views as me as the drawings "leaving a lot to be desired" or are "downright wrong" yet I don't see anyone jumping down her throat so  what's the problem with  me having the same views?

https://www.modelenginemaker.com/index.php/topic,2547.0.html

[Jo]

As I also said Jo's BB1 is having all the same sort of modifications done including a boiler redesign but she has got a bit further with hers which is in this thread. One only has to look at the first couple of posts and see se has the same views as me as the drawings "leaving a lot to be desired" or are "downright wrong" yet I don't see anyone jumping down her throat so  what's the problem with  me having the same views?

https://www.modelenginemaker.com/index.php/topic,2547.0.html

You need to provide the full quote Jason:

I have a starting point in the Hanning drawings but as I mentioned they leave a lot to be desired A lot of his design has been overly simplified, some things are downright wrong but for a 40 year old design John Hanning did a lot better design on this engine than I could have at the time.

It is very much easier to tweak an existing design to make it look more authentic than to design an entire engine from scratch and if you are publishing a design you have to take into account not everyone has years of experience behind them or expensive workshops with exotic tools or CAD with which to design and then make the individual bits.

Both Colin and John generated some excellent designs that have given many people a great deal of pleasure over the years 

Jo

[Jasonb]

Apparently I don't have years of experience being a "newcomer"

Certainly did not have as much experience, tooling machines or CAD when I did the work on the Fowler (even less for the Minnie) but that was a true to prototype design but that was all on the drawings and the likes of Fred who you know made a very good 3" version having only made a V twin oscillator before so I would class him a san almost total beginner. So I don't see why designs have to be simplified for the reasons you state if other designers could come up with more detailed designs and still be made by beginners

As I said earlier "most of us are lucky to have better equipped workshops that allows for a closer to prototype t be made these days rather than working on a Myford with vertical slide as many did back in Hainings day" Things have moved on now in the machines many have, use of CAD, CAM, CNC, Printing for Patterns etc so why stick with an old design if like Chris you are more than capable of doing better.

I don't know if you frequent TT any more but have  a look through the builds of Ross and Doug that I mentioned yes they have a lot of experience but they are making very true to original engines and both will be completely practical and get a lot of use.

[Jo]

My understanding when Mike said this:

We know you are a comparative newcomer to model engineering and may not appreciate just how much John Hanning and Colin Tyler were respected in their day.

Was that he was referring to the fact that he was reading Model Engineer back when John and Colin published their design and consequently he appreciated how model engineering had to be done back then and respected them for it. Malcom Frost's 1997 design of the A7 Fowler was from the outset intended to be a scale model and is not intended to be constructed solely on a 3 1/2" lathe as John Hanning mentioned in the second of his 1966 series on the build of the BB.

I respect Mike for his builds and the amazing output he achieves with his CNC equipment that dates from the last Millennium. Just because he uses CNC does not make his skills any greater or less than any other of us, we all learn and achieve different things in our own way. What is important is that we get pleasure in what we do and if we are happy with the results, that is a bonus 

Jo

[crueby]

Hi all,
Wow, this side topic (that I started) really has gone off to the side. And thats okay!

I wasn't going to jump in on this, but having been mentioned a few times I'll just say this: yes, I do prefer to make things as accurate to the original as I can.  That is moderated by several things - do I even know what the original was really like? I've been fortunate to have access to the real thing on several of the models, and that did help a lot. In other cases, I depended on existing plans, knowing that compromises were made for scaling things to model size and the equipment available. That is a natural thing, and I have done the same, will keep doing it, since there is no way I can make everything perfectly accurate to scale with the skill level and equipment I happen to have at that moment. Skill levels and tooling do evolve over time and things, hopefully, get more accurate. However, it is perfectly normal to adapt the original to the size being modelled at - sometimes its just because if it was made to perfect scale the metal would be so thin as to be flimsy and unworkable! Or, things need to be adjusted for the fasteners, taps, dies available and usable - just today I am working on a governor at 1:16 scale - no way in hell can I make all the bits perfectly, and am adjusting thicknesses/dimensions/gear sizes/etc to suit. If I was a master watchmaker, that threshold would be in a different place. I am not, so I take it to the level I can. When working with existing plans, I trust and assume the person who drew them for themselves and other modellers went through the same process - thats perfectly normal and accepted.

Years ago (and the debate continues) there were a number of articles written about this very topic in the ship model community - some in thier ivory towers declared that if a model was not done perfectly to scale in all respects that it should never be made at all since it would mislead researchers looking at them in the future. Poppycock! If that were the case, not even the makers of the exquisite Admiralty ship models used to present the designs to the top brass would have made a model.

Oh, and having had some articles/plans published, I can attest to the fact that sometimes the publisher requires things to be simplified some for space or even their percieved view of the average skill level of their readers!
Okay, that came out a lot longer than I intended, rant over. My bottom line: this is a hobby I enjoy, at whatever level I have achieved at the time. If a model is not a perfect scale reproduction of the original, thats fine. If you want it perfect it will never be made except at something like 1/2 scale, if that.

Time to go have a cookie (or one of the fresh donuts I got at the cider mill this week), relax out on the porch some more in the nice weather, and head back into the shop to play some more later!

Chris
 

[Jasonb]

My understanding when Mike said this:

We know you are a comparative newcomer to model engineering and may not appreciate just how much John Hanning and Colin Tyler were respected in their day.

Was that he was referring to the fact that he was reading Model Engineer back when John and Colin published their design and consequently he appreciated how model engineering had to be done back then and respected them for it. Malcom Frost's 1997 design of the A7 Fowler was from the outset intended to be a scale model and is not intended to be constructed solely on a 3 1/2" lathe as John Hanning mentioned in the second of his 1966 series on the build of the BB.

Well with Superba being published in 1989 some eight years after I made my first steam model as posted earlier it may be fair to assume I too was avidly reading ME too by then. Probably had Minnie on the go then and a lot of the methods described by Haining are applicable to other TEs. And yes I did mention only having a myford and V slide nay have affected Hainings design.

Did not quote the second para as I don't think I have said anything here to doubt what Vixen does and that is why I particularly said I was not judging their models.

As Chris has replied and confirmed  he likes to make with as much detail as possible and I posted my first comment here to simply say that if following the Haining drawings it won't be that detailed. I did not say it must be exact but just to be aware that it can be improved if the builder so desires.

[Jo]

This thread seems to have gone down a rabbit hole which does not reflect the encouraging, friendly, positive respect that we expect of members on this forum I am therefore locking this thread.

Jo