Halstead

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

Have I missed something or is it the case that vital dimensions are missing from the drawings in the Halstead articles in me 4537?

Pete

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Pete, which drawing, just look at it I would guess Fig 6, the buffer?

Ian S C

[OuBallieParticipant @ouballie]

Nowt to do with me🤔

Geoff – Heading made me sit up😮

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

The dimensions on fig 6 are incomplete and the dimensions on fig 5 don't help determine what they should be.

fig 5 has a cranked vertical line on what appears to be the front face however I'm guessing its the relief in the angle brackets to clear the buffer shaft. It should be dashed if it is. There are no dimensions to locate the three holes for the angle brackets, althiugh could be inferred from the frames however its a different face.

Fig 3 what does the box around the cylinder mount represent? Dimensioning of the front stretcher uses one hole an one face as the reference. Incomplete dimensions for guard irons and three holes in tab to the rear of the rear driven wheel.

There may be more but when I read the article I did a "can I make this"check and the answer was "No", there's too much to infer.

Stu must be on holiday…

Pete

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Text does nopt help much either. Can't see why teh buffer beams were cut off at 8.75" when the drawing has then at 8.25"

As you say that cranked line looks like clearance in the angle and is that 4 holes in that angle and three in the other?

Fig 4 has the frames narrowed down to 4.0" but buffer drawing has then at 4.125". Also is the 3.75" dim for the first bend right as that is in the middle of the axle! probably should be 1.875" + 3.75" as per Fig 3

I'll ask Diane to see if she can clarify.

Edit, She's on the case.

 

Edited By JasonB on 08/07/2016 08:24:52

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

Jason

I had thought that if there really was a problem with the drawings you'd be quickly on to it

I built the Northumbrian and there were a number of people who started and then had to scrap their frames due to drawing errors. In this case it I believe it would be problematic to even get started. That said there are always going to be errors or omissions. It's part of the fun of the game.

Thanks

Pete

[Senior YatesParticipant @senioryates]

Hi, sorry to intrude this thread but does anyone know of a club near Halstead as I'm local and I would like to join a club?

Many thanks

Senior

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I have been in contact with Terry Woodward and can confirm

Fig 5 "Cranked" vertical lines should be hidden detail of the cutout in the angle to clear buffer.

Fig 5 Overall width of buffer beams should be 8.75" as per text

Fig 4 Bend should start 5.625 from rear of frame and return to parrelel 1.375 from that point as shown on Fig3

Fig 3 "Box" around cylinder mounting holes should just be lightly dotted to indicate position of cylinder.

Terry has also emphasised that despite what the bold intro says that this is not meant as a blow by blow construction series with working drawings but an article about how he went about building a unique subject, if anyone wishes to have a go at doing the same engine then as mentioned in the text get the drawings for the other engines mentioned and work out the missing bits to suit your own requirements.

J

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

Neil

You may well worry. As it stands, from the drawings provided so far the loco would never run. The wheels on the two coupled axles are different diameters!!

I understand that not a lot is likely to happen in correcting the errors, however I would suggest there's not much point in providing any more drawings.

Potential bullders, good luck

Pete

[Diane CarneyModerator @dianecarney30678]

Fig 3 does indeed show the wheels having different diameters and that is an error that I should have picked up on and didn't. I hold my hands up to that one. Yes, poor editing but does it matter to a builder? It is a drawing that is essentially describing the frames. The wheels are not dimensioned and are irrelevant on this drawing – they would be better not there at all. I cannot see an instance where any place is referenced form the wheel. More importantly, the axlebox 'cut-outs' are identical and any vertical references are only give from the leading axlebox.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Diane

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Diane, see my e-mail sent a while ago

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Doubletop on 13/07/2016 11:15:47:

Neil

You may well worry.

Pete

I wasn't talking about Halstead!

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I've deleted my own posting – I was confused and commenting on another series – sorry!

Neil

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 13/07/2016 12:25:54:

I've deleted my own posting – I was confused and commenting on another series – sorry!

Neil

And there was me expecting the imminent start of a loco build by your goodself

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 13/07/2016 12:25:54:

I've deleted my own posting – I was confused and commenting on another series – sorry!

Neil

Well fortunately it isn't this series then:

ME 4539 Preview: "A new series starts this issue, as Neil Wyatt takes us through his work on Southam, an authentic looking 3½ inch gauge battery locomotive."

Because despite any concerns from our MEW editor about "another series", it is gratifying to know that we can expect the "Southam" series to be up to his usual high standard.

Clive

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by clivel on 15/07/2016 16:44:54:

it is gratifying to know that we can expect the "Southam" series to be up to his usual high standard.

Clive

Now that I have cast my eye over the drawings we can

[Author]

Posts