Big traction engine with 44 plows

[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