Yet another Stuart Triple Expansion Engine!

[simplyloco]

I purchased a new set of castings yesterday. It's a little smaller than a a Stuart Major, but probably a bigger project. 
We have a Living Room makeover going on right now, but this is a start!

I've never, ever, bought new castings before, and I was surprised at the clever packaging and the content. Mind you, at £1000 a pop it should be OK...!

Four trays of castings and a crank GA drawing. You even get piston rings, all the BA bolts/screws/nuts, and gasket paper!



Two detailed drawings and a full GA.



Too much flash for my liking. I pointed this out to the Stuart salesman and he said that's the best the foundry can do! He also said that some customers moan if they remove it before sale!



More soon. I've got to get my Cowells up to scratch!!!
John

[Michael S.]

Hello John,

You can get through the winter with the cast parts set. It's a lot of parts.
I look forward to pictures when construction begins.

Michael

[Admiral_dk]

That is an Expensive 'Toy'  .. but it should keep you out off Trouble for quite a while 

Enjoy and I hope that you will share some of the experience with us     

Per

[simplyloco]

I'm sending it all back!

Copy of my email.


Dear Sirs.

I purchased the above on Sunday at the Show. I wish to return them as the castings I have examined are not of the quality demanded, and I would not be able, (or motivated) to produce a decent result. My last project, a Major Beam. was made from castings from a different era...

I learnt to sand cast during my apprenticeship, and I would not have dared to present these to my examiners, especially if I was charging £1000 a pop... Excess flash, holes and very poor finish: the base is so bad that to meet my usual standards I would have to machine off the entire surface of the casting! In addition, the pump housing has been cast in a grade of sand entirely unsuitable to the size.

I would be obliged if you would kindly send me a return label at your earliest convenience, and issue a refund in due course.

Thanks

John Barrett

[Jo]

They are not impressive are they  . Stuart Casting used to have a fine finish -those look like they used rough old sand.

Are there any other castings full of holes?

Jo

[Michael S.]

Oh that looks bad. Because of the way ist's packaged, you can't see it when you buy it.
I've never had a problem with Stuart castings. Except for the base of the beam. The lower edge of the was glass hard.
Hope you get your money back.

Michael

[simplyloco]

They are not impressive are they  . Stuart Casting used to have a fine finish -those look like they used rough old sand.
Are there any other castings full of holes?
Jo

Hi Jo
It is all blister packed, so I'll leave them undisturbed. I've seen enough!
John
I'll have to find another job for my new girlie which arrives on Tuesday!

[Charles Lamont]

I had a conversation with the guy on the Stuart stand at the recent ME exhibition. He said he was the owner of the foundry.  He said, in reply to someone else, that they deliberately leave the flash on because people complain when they are over-dressed. Now, obviously, it also keeps the labour costs down. I agree that the surface finish on those castings seems rather gravely. Otherwise I can't see anything wrong. I see no holes, other than in the flash. Properly finishing any casting requires the use of (old) files, and perhaps a Dremel to knock the high spots off, and filler for the low spots before even thinking about paint. Two flashes over with a rattle can is not a 'finish'. For a bare 'as cast' surface I would expect to fettle/dress the casting then sand blast it.

[Chipswitheverything]

Here are some snaps of my Stuart Turner Triple casting set, Henley on Thames version - my guess, from the price of £57-94, is that they are about mid 1970's. I bought them on a second hand stall back in the 1980's, for £35.   When the decks are cleared of finishing a couple of other long term, and more recently, delayed, projects, Quorn grinder and painting the major Beam, I may remove these castings from their bubble packaging and have a go with them! I have already made the drain cocks, they used not to be with the set unless bought extra! The castings, including the base, appear to be just as moulded, not tidied by fettling.   Dave

[simplyloco]

Thanks Dave, your photos show how much standards have fallen and prices have risen!

[Chipswitheverything]

I did a price check in a few old S-T catalogues that I have here, in 1973 the casting set was about £22, and in 1979 it was around £55, a reminder of the sort of thing we are facing again now!  So this set illustrated must be about end of the seventies in fact. I seem to remember that in the mid 1960's the triple set was Eight guineas, maybe plus Purchase Tax.   But, my first house, a two bed with garage, was £14,950 back in 1979...   Makes me feel even older than I feel anyway!  Dave

[Jasonb]

I'm with Charles, they may look a bit rough in the zoomed in photos but what surface would not, the ones that show the whole bed casting look reasonable with just an excess of flash which is easy enough to deal with and I thought part of the "fun" of working from castings.

Can't see the holes mentioned

Provided there is enough metal there then I'm happy to work with what is provided , at the sort of scale that these engines may be if they were based on a prototype the cast surfaces would be more like 400g wet and dry so you are never going to get a baby's bum finish from sand castings so they will need fettling and filling.

I did suggest elesewhere that John just buy a couple of the main castings and fabricate or cut the rest from solid. It's not a lot more work to add in the base, cylinders and a couple of the covers which are all that you may have wanted to get as castings. Not even any need for CNC it's all quite straightforward manual machining.

I came across this earlier in the week, I think Mr Westbury is on the right track on his articles about Muncaster's work

[simplyloco]

I'm with Charles, they may look a bit rough in the zoomed in photos but what surface would not, the ones that show the whole bed casting look reasonable with just an excess of flash which is easy enough to deal with and I thought part of the "fun" of working from castings.

SNIP

I came across this earlier in the week, I think Mr Westbury is on the right track on his articles about Muncaster's work

Hi Jason.
I'm with you regarding fabrication, but there are a lot of castings, all badly made, and at my stage of life I can only put up with so much 'fun' before I actually get to build anything!

[Jasonb]

I was not sure how much you felt upto doing now due to the eye problems.

If it's a marine engine you are wanting to do then Stuarts are really the only option as far as castings go and all likely to be a similar finish.

Something like the compound or twin would  still make a nice engine from scratch with less parts as it does not have the pumps etc unless you want to add them. I'd even be inclined to scale it up a bit from 1 1/4 & 3/4 bores to 40 and 24mm with the simple 1/32 - 1mm conversion. Still not excessively large but could be a bit easier on the eyes. Also easier to get going on air than a triple.

[steam guy willy]

Hi What are the two rectangular lumps in the cylinder bores ??  Just a bit confusing ??!!
\Willy ..Back in the workshop soon after a few weeks off editing the local Gardening magazine etc etc

Willy